DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 3/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10, 13-14, 17, 19-21, 25, and 31 have been canceled. New claims 35-37 have been added. Claims 9, 11-12, 15-16, 18, 22-24, 26-30, and 32-37 are pending in the application. Claims 15-16 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Election was made without traverse in the response filed 3/10/2023. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 35-36 are 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 35 recites, “The selective radiative cooling structure of claim 11 comprising: a selectively emissive layer comprising a polymer and a plurality of dielectric particles dispersed in the polymer, wherein the dielectric particles have an average size range from 4µm-10µm and the volume percentage of the dielectric particles in the selective emissive layer ranges from 2% to 25%; and a solar reflective layer in contact with the selectively emissive layer, the solar reflective layer comprising a metal film or metal substrate; wherein…the selective radiative cooling structure has radiative cooling power greater than 100 W/m2 during the daytime or during both daytime and nighttime at room temperature” (emphasis added), however, given that claim 11, from which claim 35 depends, already recites “a selectively emissive layer”, “a polymer”, “a plurality of dielectric particles”, “a solar reflective layer”, and “a metal film or metal substrate” on lines 3-9, it is unclear whether “a selectively emissive layer”, “a polymer”, “a plurality of dielectric particles”, “a solar reflective layer”, and “a metal film or metal substrate” on lines 2-7 are meant to be the same or said “selectively emissive layer”, etc., as those already recited in claim 11 or meant to be an additional “selectively emissive layer” comprising another “polymer” and another “plurality of dielectric particles” of different average particle size range and an additional “solar reflective layer”, etc. Hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Dependent claim 36 does not overcome the above and hence is indefinite for the same reasons wherein it is further noted that if “a plurality of dielectric particles” of claim 35 is meant to be an additional plurality of dielectric particles aside from the plurality of dielectric particles already recited in claim 11, then dependent claim 36 would be further indefinite given that it would be unclear as to which dielectric particles, e.g. of claim 11 or of claim 35 or both claims 11 and 35, “are solid SiO2 spheres”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9, 11-12, 18, 22-24, 26-30, and 32-34 as well as new claims 35-37 (assuming the repeated elements in claim 35 are meant to refer to “said” or “the” same elements as recited in claim 11) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US2010/0155043) in view of Dubbeldam (WO2009/112495A1) and in further view of Dombrovsky (Modeling of Thermal Radiation of Polymer Coating Containing Hollow Microspheres, hereinafter referred to as “Dombrovsky 2005”), or Dombrovsky (Infrared radiative properties of polymer coatings containing hollow microspheres, hereinafter referred to as “Dombrovsky 2007”), or Baneshi (Infrared Radiative Properties of Thin Polyethylene Coating Pigmented with Titanium Dioxide Particles, hereinafter referred to as “Baneshi 2010”) or Baneshi (The Effects of Using Some Common White Pigments on Thermal and Aesthetic Performances of Pigmented Coatings, hereinafter referred to as “Baneshi 2008”) or Vargas (Light scattering coatings: Theory and solar applications), for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with respect to the amended/new claims, wherein the Examiner again notes that Smith teaches the general component/layer structure and does not specifically limit the particle size, particle volume content, and specific optical properties (e.g., emissivity, absorptivity, etc.) as instantly claimed but that given the teachings of Dubbeldam with respect to the claimed optical properties including emissivity and absorptivity, and the general knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art in light of the supporting references to Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, Baneshi 2008, or Vargas, the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the combined prior art teachings, particularly given the absence of any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the instant claims wherein the independent claims do not require any particular type of polymer and/or dielectric particles..
As discussed in the prior office action, Smith teaches an element for emission of thermal radiation comprising particles dispersed in a polymeric material wherein the element may be arranged to have desired emission and/or transmissive properties for radiation of a pre-determined wavelength, and a cooling device for cooling a medium by removing heat from the medium by selective thermal radiation utilizing the element for emission of thermal radiation, wherein the element can facilitate cooling of the medium in thermal contact with the element without the need for electrical energy, and the cooling device may comprise a plurality of said elements or “cold collection devices” as shown in Figs. 15A-C, which may be particularly useful as roof sheet (e.g. “in the form of a sheet” as in instant claim 26) and/or for cooling buildings (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Fig. 15; Paragraphs 0013-0020, 0026, 0029, 0038, 0046-0049, 0071, 0074, 0114, 0147, 0153, and 0162-0165). Smith teaches that the element comprises a particle layer having particles (44,56) or grains, such as SiO, silicon oxynitride, and/or SiC particles (e.g. “dielectric” particles as in instant claims 9, 11, 18, 29 and new claims 35-37), dispersed in a transparent polymeric material (54), such as polyethylene or fluorinated polymeric material, that may be substantially transparent for visible light and/or largely transparent to thermal radiation within a black body wavelength range such as a radiation wavelength within the range of 3-28 µm or a wavelength outside one or both of 3-5 µm and 7.9-13 µm, or most of solar spectral range in addition to the black body radiation range; with the particles or grains (44) having an average diameter selected so that the layer is arranged for emission of thermal radiation having a wavelength within the atmospheric window range, and particles (56) having a spectrally selective property that complements a spectrally selective property of the particles (44) (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0017, 0025-0028, 0073, 0122-0129, 0143, and 0179). Smith also teaches that the device may comprise a reflective layer 42, or layer of reflective material such as Ag (e.g. reading upon the claimed “solar reflective layer” of instant claims 11, 23, and new claim 35), adjacent the particle layer to reflect at least a portion of incident radiation, particularly a majority of thermal radiation and visible radiation originating from the sun and from the atmosphere, in a thickness selected to effect desired reflection; and/or may further comprise a protective cover layer over a body portion of the element, wherein the cover layer protects the element from wind and external influences that could reduce the cooling efficiency and has relatively high transmissive for radiation having a wavelength within the atmospheric window wavelength range (e.g. reading upon the claimed “protective film that is solar-transparent and weather-resistant” of instant claims 9 and 18; Paragraphs 0008, 0028, 0051-0052, 0073, 0107, 0117, 0120-0126, and 0130).
Hence, with respect to the claimed selective radiative cooling structure and cold collection system, Smith teaches a general structure as instantly claimed wherein the selective radiative cooling structure comprises a selectively emissive layer comprising a polymer and a plurality of dielectric particles dispersed therein, and a protective film that is solar-transparent and “weather-resistant” and/or a solar reflective layer comprising a metal film or substrate that is in contact with the selectively emissive layer, and the cold collection system comprising a plurality of cold collection devices configured to be in thermal communication with a heat transfer fluid, and a plurality of said selectively emissive radiative cooling structures with the selectively emissive layer in thermal communication with a surface of one of the plurality of collection devices as in instant claims 9, 11, 18, and 34, and although Smith clearly teaches that the particle layer, including the particle/grain size, can be configured to provide desired optical properties for a particular end use, including desired transmissivity and emissivity/absorptivity properties for a given or pre-determined wavelength(s), with referenced wavelengths including those as instantly claimed, Smith does not specifically teach that the selectively emissive layer comprises l to 25 vol% of dielectric particles having an average size ranging from 3 to 30µm as in instant claims 9, 11, and 18 (or more particularly 2 to 25 vol% and/or average size of 4 to 10µm as in instant claim 32 and new claim 35), and that the combination of the particle layer and protective cover layer or combination of the particle layer and reflective layer has optical properties as instantly claimed. However, Dubbeldam teaches a similar roof element (3) and building comprising a plurality of the roof elements (e.g. a plurality of cold collection devices) as part of a cooling system or climate control system (e.g. cold collection system) wherein the roof elements comprise a metal base (4) of heat conductive material in the form of a metal plate or sheet or foil, with one side coated with a polymeric coating and the opposite side comprising a contact surface for a cooling medium flow path of a heat exchange fluid, particularly water (e.g. “in thermal communication with a heat transfer fluid” as in instant claim 18, also as in Smith; Entire document, particularly Abstract; Page 1, lines 20-27; Page 2, lines 9-10; Page 3, lines 1-3; Page 7, line 20 – Page 8, line 32; Figures). Dubbeldam teaches that the cooling medium flow path can be defined by an array of channels, such as metal tubes (6) in thermal contact with the heat conductive material of the base (Page 3, lines 6-9) and can form part of a cooling system of a building (e.g. as in Smith) wherein the cooled medium is stored in an isolated basis such as an aquifer (Page 3, lines 6-9; Page 6, lines 9-19; Fig. 2). Dubbeldam teaches that the coated metal base has visible light/daylight reflective properties functioning as a mirror, with at least part of the light having a wavelength of 0.25 to 4 microns being reflected (e.g. similar to the reflective layer of Smith), wherein to improve reflectivity of the metal base, the metal base can be at least partly made of a metal with a reflectivity of greater than 0.5, such as preferably a polished metal to maximize reflectivity (broadly reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed solar reflective layer and solar reflectivity of instant claim 11; Page 2, lines 1-7 and 28-29; Page 3, lines 11-19). Dubbeldam teaches that the coating is transparent to daylight, e.g. 0.25 - 4 microns (reading upon the claimed “solar transparent” as in instant claims 9, 11, and 18, and also suggesting a low solar absorptivity over the range of 0.3 to 3 microns as in instant claims 9, 18, and 22) but opaque for infrared, e.g. in the wavelength range of 4-30 microns, acting as an effective black body for infrared radiation, for instance for wavelengths of about 10 microns and thereby significantly improving the heat radiation capacity of the heat conductive base (broadly reading upon the claimed “selectively emissive layer” of each selective radiative cooling structure in thermal communication with the surface of one of the plurality of cold collection devices”; Page 1, lines 20-27; Page 2, lines 1-7 and 28-32). Dubbeldam teaches that in terms of thermal radiation, a preferred polymer coating for the emissive coating layer (e.g. similar to the polymer/particle layer of Smith) has an emissivity of greater than 0.8 for wavelengths between 5 and 15 microns thereby reading upon and/or suggesting the claimed average emissivity of 0.6 to 1.0 over the wavelength range of 7 to 13 µm as recited in instant claims 9, 11, 18 and new claim 35 (Page 3, line 31-Page 4, line 4). Dubbeldam teaches that the coating can be based on a suitable binder such as acrylic binders, polyester binders, and particularly fluoropolymeric binders (as in Smith), with commercial examples including LUMIFLON® and TEFZEL® (Page 2, lines 13-26). Further, each of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, Baneshi 2008, and Vargas teaches that optical properties of polymer coatings or layers can be tailored to exhibit specific transmission, absorption, and/or reflection properties over a given wavelength range based upon a desired end use, particularly a high emissivity of greater than 0.8 in infrared wavelengths as in Dubbeldam for radiative cooling (as in Dubbeldam and Smith), by incorporating (nano)particles, particularly spherical (nano)particles or microspheres such as of titanium dioxide, silica, or glass microspheres, in particle sizes and/or contents within the claimed ranges, into a semi-transparent or non-absorbing polymer coating/layer utilizing known optical theories to determine the particle type, size, and content to be dispersed in a particular polymer medium to provide the desired optical properties. More specifically, Dombrovsky 2005 investigates the effect of hollow glass microspheres added to a polymer coating for open surfaces of a building on the heat loss due to thermal radiation, including the effects of particle size and volume concentration, with theoretical examples utilizing pure quartz glass microspheres with a radius of 10 µm or 20 µm, including an example at a volume fraction fv of 0.3 (i.e. 30%), with the coatings exhibiting emissivity, reflectivity, and/or transmittance properties as in the instantly claimed invention (Entire document); while Dombrovsky 2007 investigates infrared radiative properties of polymer coatings containing glass microspheres in a volume content of from about 6 to 66% over the wavelength range of 2.6 to 18 µm with working examples utilizing glass microspheres with normalized particle diameters within the claimed range(s) and the coatings exhibiting emissivity, reflectivity, and/or transmittance properties as in the instantly claimed invention (Entire document). Similarly, each of Baneshi 2010 and Baneshi 2008 teaches effects of titanium dioxide diameter/particle size and concentration on the thermal performance and optical properties including transmittance and reflectance in the visible, near infrared, and infrared regions utilizing a database of radiative properties for TiO2 in polyethylene as an absorbing medium or in acrylic resin as a nonabsorbing medium, respectively, with particle diameters ranging from 0.010 to 100 µm, or 10 nm to 500 µm, respectively, and specific volume concentrations within the claimed range (Entire document); while Vargas reports on theoretical advances in the field of light scattering by polymer coatings and foils comprising particles, such as titania and silica, and methods for computing parameters in the four-flux and two-flux radiative transfer theories, wherein Vargas also teaches that a combination of layers/particles can be utilized to obtain desired optical properties (Entire document). Hence, given that each of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, Baneshi 2008, and Vargas utilizes the same basic optical laws/theories as utilized in the instant invention to determine or predict desired optical properties of materials that may be utilized for radiative cooling (Dombrovsky 2005, Introduction; Dombrovsky 2007, Introduction, Section 6; Baneshi 2010, Introduction; Baneshi 2008, Abstract, Introduction; and Vargas, Introduction); the Examiner takes the position that the claimed average particle size and volume percentages as recited in instant claims 9, 11, 18, 28, 32 and new claim 35 as well as the claimed dielectric particles types and spherical shape as recited in instant claims 29-30 and new claims 36-37, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based upon known optical concepts, theories, and modeling as evidenced by Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, or Baneshi 2008 or Vargas (wherein it is further noted that the instant specification clearly recites that “[t]he experimental results agree well with theory”). Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 9, 11, 18, 22-23, 26, 28-30, 32, and 34 as well as new claim 37 would have been obvious over the teachings of Smith in view of Dubbeldam and in further view of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, or Baneshi 2008 or Vargas, wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize known optical principles and theories to determine the optimum particle size and particle volume concentration of a desired particle material (including shape/morphology as in instant claims 30 and 36-37) to be dispersed in a desired polymer to provide a polymer layer/sheet having high emissivity properties in combination with low absorption and/or high transmittance in the visible range to facilitate radiative cooling as in Smith and/or Dubbeldam.
With respect to instant claim 12, it is again noted that Smith teaches that the cooling device may comprise a layer of reflective material, such as a reflective metallic layer, wherein the reflective material improves the cooling efficiency and the reflective material may comprise for example Al, Cu, Ag, Au, Ni, Cr, Mo, W or steel including stainless steel, in a thickness selected to effect desired reflection, particularly to reflect radiation having a wide wavelength range and originating, for example, from the sun, and although Smith does not specifically limit the thickness of the reflective metallic layer as instantly claimed, given the reflective metals taught by Smith and that the reflective layer may have a thickness selected to effect reflection of thermal radiation to further facilitate cooling, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, a thickness within the claimed average thickness range of from 20 nm to 1000 nm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art given that one having ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognized that in general, as thickness increases, reflectivity increases until reaching a saturation value for a given metal, such as about 150nm for silver (Paragraphs 0073, 0117, 0120, 0122, 0113, 0130, 0132-0134). Hence, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 12 would have been obvious over Smith in view of Dubbeldam and in further view of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, or Baneshi 2008 or Vargas.
With respect to instant claim 24, Smith does not limit the polymer to be utilized and as noted above, broadly recites that the particles/grains can be dispersed in a transparent polymeric material, such as polyethylene or fluorinated polymeric material, and given that polyvinyl fluoride as in instant claim 24 is an obvious species of transparent fluorinated polymeric material, and that olefin copolymers such as poly(4-methyl-1-pentene) as instantly claimed are known, functionally equivalent transparent olefin polymers in the art, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected the results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 24 would have been obvious over Smith in view of Dubbeldam and in further view of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, or Baneshi 2008 or Vargas given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claim 27 and new claims 35-36, in addition to the discussion above with respect to instant claim 11 from which claims 27 and 35-36 depend, given that radiative heat flux/cooling power is a function of the emissivity of the thermally radiative material and difference in surface temperature to surrounding temperature with Dubbeldam teaching an example fluoropolymer surface having an emissivity of > 0.8 providing a net energy emission of about 150 W/m2 at a surface temperature of 40°C and surrounding temperature of 10°C (Page 4), similar radiative heat flux values as taught by Dubbeldam reading upon and/or rending obvious the claimed radiative heat flux/cooling power as in instant claims 27 and 35 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Hence, given that Dubbeldam is similarly directed to radiative cooling as is Smith, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 27 and 35-36 would have been obvious over the teachings of Smith in view of Dubbeldam and in further view of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, or Baneshi 2008 or Vargas.
With respect to instant claim 33, Smith does not specifically limit the thickness of the particle layer and given that Smith broadly teaches that the element may comprise dielectric and/or metallic materials having layer thicknesses that are selected to effect reflection of thermal radiation, wherein each of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, or Baneshi 2008 and Vargas teaches that the thickness of the polymer coating/layer directly affects the optical properties with at least Dombrovsky 2007 (Entire document, particularly Table 1, Sections 3 and 5-6), Baneshi 2010 (Section 5.2), and Baneshi 2008 (Abstract, Sections 5-6) specifically teaching thicknesses on the same order of magnitude and/or within the claimed amended range of 5 to 100 µm, the Examiner again takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 33 would have been obvious over the teachings of Smith in view of Dubbeldam and in further view of Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, Baneshi 2008 or Vargas, wherein one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize known modeling software and/or routine experimentation to determine the optimum thickness and/or to utilize thicknesses similar to those taught and/or suggested by Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, Baneshi 2008 or Vargas, particularly in the absence of any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed thickness range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the obviousness rejection over the cited prior art. Specifically, the Applicant first argues that the rejection is allegedly improper and allegedly does not establish prima facie obviousness, noting that the characterization of the teachings of Smith are allegedly incomplete and arguing that one skilled in the art when reviewing the entirety of Smith’s description allegedly would understand that the particles to be incorporated into Smith’s device “would be at most in the nanoparticle range.” The Applicant argues that Smith’s teaching of the use of SiC particles having an average diameter of 50 nm (0.05 µm) allegedly teaches away from the use of 3 µm to 30 µm particles as in the claimed invention, noting that the specification allegedly demonstrates improved results when particles having particle size of 3 µm are employed (see page 9 of the response). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and first notes that the specification appears to only provide data for specific 8 µm-diameter solid silica microspheres or glass beads dispersed in a specific polymethylpentene polymer and a general graph shown in Fig. 14 of average emissivity as a function of glass bead concentration (volume fraction) from 0.00 to 0.20 for different size glass beads (GB) ranging from 10 µm to 150 µm which appears to show an obvious, expected trend in the data. Hence, Applicant’s arguments that the specification [allegedly] demonstrates improved results when particles having a particle size of 3 µm are employed are not persuasive and even if the examples utilizing the specific 8 µm-diameter solid silica microspheres dispersed in the specific polymethylpentene polymer provided “improved” or unexpected results over sizes outside of the claimed range, the Examiner would be of the position that such results would not be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and hence could not be relied upon to overcome an obviousness rejection. The Examiner also notes that contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Smith does not limit the particles to those in the nanoparticle range only and one skilled in the art would clearly understand that the 50 nm particle size taught by Smith for the SiC particles is non-limiting especially given that Smith clearly teaches that the average diameter of the particles or grains can be selected so that the layer is arranged for emission of thermal radiation having a wavelength within the atmospheric window range in general.
The Applicant also argues that while the structure of Dubbeldam may be similar to that of Smith in some ways, Dubbeldam does not teach that the coating contains particles that affect the transmission or reflection properties of the structure, arguing that Dubbeldam’s teaching of transparent nano-particles, absent any definition thereof, would allegedly suggest a particle size of 1 to 100 nm, and that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in [Dubbeldam] of any optical properties associated with the use of such particles, expect that they are transparent” (see first full paragraph of page 10). However, the Examiner notes that the Applicant appears to be arguing the references separately and not as presented in the rejection, wherein Dubbeldam was not relied upon by the Examiner with respect to the “transparent nano-particles of a photocatalytic material, such as titanium dioxide” as utilized in Dubbeldam to enhance the self-cleaning effect of the coating, and instead was relied upon with respect to desired optical properties, e.g., emissivity, reflectivity, etc., of the structure and the daylight transparent polymeric coating for heat dissipation by radiation for a similar roof element and building comprising a plurality of the roof elements (e.g. a plurality of cold collection devices) as part of a cooling system or climate control system as in Smith; wherein the Examiner then relied upon known optical concepts, theories, and modeling, as evidenced by Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, Baneshi 2008 or Vargas, noting that the instant specification clearly recites that “[t]he experimental results agree well with theory” (see Paragraph 0113). Hence, given the absence of any clear showing of unexpected results, and especially in light of the fact that Applicant’s “experimental results agree well with theory,” the Examiner maintains her position that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize known optical principles and theories, as taught by Dombrovsky 2005, Dombrovsky 2007, Baneshi 2010, Baneshi 2008 or Vargas, to determine the optimum particle size and particle volume concentration of a desired particle material (such as silica particles as taught by Smith, or more particularly, “solid silica spheres” – an obvious species of particle/SiO material utilized in the art for heat dissipating applications as evidenced by Iwamura, US2015/0010759A1, Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0039, 0042, 0045, 0047, 0158-0178, Examples) to be dispersed in a desired polymer to provide a polymer layer/sheet having high emissivity properties in combination with low absorption and/or high transmittance in the visible range to facilitate radiative cooling as in Smith and/or Dubbeldam.
However, the Examiner may reconsider her obviousness position above upon a clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results that is commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 3/2/2026.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights