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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/01/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-16 and 19-49 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 27-49 are withdrawn.
Claims 6, 17 and 18 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not teach that “the filter material further comprises pectin as a binder”, as required by amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, obviousness grounds of rejection are made for all claims further in view of Peter et al. (US 20090301503 A1).
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 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 1-9, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Crooks (US 20160073686 A1) in view of Mccormack et al. (US 20150059789 A1), Peter et al. (US 20090301503 A1) and Matsumura et al. (US 5678577 A).
Regarding claim 1, Crooks teaches a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device (filter element 26; Abstract, [0047]), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers selected from the group consisting of regenerated cellulose, wood, and combinations thereof, wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0007], [0036], [0040], [0044]).
Crooks does not explicitly teach (I) that the filter material further comprises pectin as a binder or (II) a denier per filament of the filter material.
Regarding (I), Crooks teaches that it is known in the art to use a binder (water soluble fiber bonding agents) to promote degradation of filter elements ([0004]).
Mccormack, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device ([0001]), comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0004]), teaches that the filter material may include a binder to improve the strength of the sheet ([0014]). Mccormack further teaches that the binder may be water soluble ([0011]) to improve degradation ([0014]).
Peter, directed to a method of making a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device ([0012]), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers selected from the group consisting of regenerated cellulose, wood and combinations thereof ([0194], [0199]), teaches that filter materials may comprise binders such as pectin ([0280], [0282], [0284]), a water-soluble component.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by (a) using a water soluble binder as taught by Mccormack and (b) using pectin as the water soluble binder as taught by Peter because both Crooks and Mccormack are directed to filter materials comprising nonwoven sheets comprised of a plurality of fibers, Mccormack teaches that a water-soluble binder may be used to improve the strength and degradation of the sheet, Peter teaches that pectin is a known alternative water soluble binder for use in filter materials, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Matsumura, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device, the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers, wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet (Abstract; col. 3, lines 1-5), teaches a denier per filament of 1-10 for a tobacco filter (col. 7, lines 23-36). Matsumura further teaches that this denier per filament ensures manufacturability and efficiency of the filter.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by making the filter material with a denier per filament of 1-10 as taught by Matsumura because both Crooks and Matsumura are directed to filter materials comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet, Crooks is silent to a denier per filament of the filter material and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable denier per filament for a filter material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The claimed denier per filament of about 1 dpf to about 30 dpf overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Crooks teaches that the filter material is in the form of a pleated nonwoven sheet gathered to form a rod-like element ([0007], [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Crooks teaches that the nonwoven sheet has a basis weight of about 20 gsm to about 90 gsm ([0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Crooks teaches that the nonwoven sheet has a basis weight of about 40 gsm to about 80 gsm ([0007] teaches a basis weight of about 20 gsm to about 90 gsm. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 5, Crooks teaches that the nonwoven sheet has a basis weight of about 50 gsm to about 70 gsm ([0007] a basis weight of about 20 gsm to about 90 gsm. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura teaches that the denier per filament (dpf) of the filter material is about 1 dpf to about 30 dpf (col. 7, lines 23-36 disclose a range of about 1 dpf to about 10 dpf. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura teaches that the denier per filament (dpf) of the filter material is about 1 dpf to about 25 dpf (col. 7, lines 23-36 disclose a range of about 1 dpf to about 10 dpf. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura teaches that the denier per filament (dpf) of the filter material is about 1 dpf to about 5 dpf (col. 7, lines 23-36 disclose a range of about 2 dpf to about 7 dpf. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 9, Crooks teaches that the filter material is crimped ([0036], [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, Crooks teaches that the filter material further comprises a plasticizer ([0043]).
Regarding claim 16, Crooks teaches that the plasticizer is triacetin ([0043]).
Regarding claim 20, Crooks teaches a filter element adapted for use in an aerosol delivery device (filter element 26; Abstract, [0047]), the filter element comprising one or more segments of a filter material ([0008]), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers selected from the group consisting of regenerated cellulose, wood, and combinations thereof, wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0007], [0036], [0040], [0044]).
Crooks does not teach a denier per filament of the filter material.
Matsumura, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device, the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers, wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet (Abstract; col. 3, lines 1-5), teaches a denier per filament of 1-10 for a tobacco filter (col. 7, lines 23-36). Matsumura further teaches that this denier per filament ensures manufacturability and efficiency of the filter.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by making the filter material with a denier per filament of 1-10 as taught by Matsumura because both Crooks and Matsumura are directed to filter materials comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet, Crooks is silent to a denier per filament of the filter material and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable denier per filament for a filter material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The claimed denier per filament of about 1 dpf to about 30 dpf overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks, Mccormack, Peter and Matsumura, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sanderson et al. (US 20050283958 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Crooks does not explicitly teach a crimp depth.
Sanderson, directed to a crimped filter material adapted for use as a filter element comprising a plurality of cellulose fibers in the form of a fibrous tow, teaches that the crimped filter material has a crimp depth of about 1 micron to about 180 microns ([0035] describes a crimp depth of 12.5 microns to 150 microns, which anticipates the claimed range).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by having a filter material with a crimp depth of about 1 micron to about 180 microns as taught by Sanderson because both Crooks and Sanderson are directed to crimped filter materials, Sebastian is silent to a crimp depth and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable filter material crimp depth, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Crooks does not explicitly teach a crimp depth.
Sanderson, directed to a crimped filter material comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a fibrous tow, teaches that the crimped filter material has a crimp depth of about 1 micron to about 150 microns ([0035] describes a crimp depth of 12.5 microns to 150 microns, which anticipates the claimed range).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by having a filter material with a crimp depth of about 1 micron to about 150 microns as taught by Sanderson because both Crooks and Sanderson are directed to crimped filter materials, Sebastian is silent to a crimp depth and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable filter material crimp depth, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Crooks does not explicitly teach a crimp depth.
Sanderson, directed to a crimped filter material comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a fibrous tow, teaches that the crimped filter material has a crimp depth of about 50 microns to about 100 microns ([0035] describes a crimp depth of 12.5 microns to 150 microns. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by having a filter material with a crimp depth of about 50 microns to about 100 microns as taught by Sanderson because both Crooks and Sanderson are directed to crimped filter materials, Crooks is silent to a crimp depth and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable filter material crimp depth, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claims 13-14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks, Mccormack, Peter and Matsumura, as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Lemmouchi et al. (US 20140318561 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Crooks teaches that the nonwoven sheet has a width that may vary ([0036]).
Crooks does not teach an exact width of the nonwoven sheet.
Lemmouchi, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element (Abstract), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0034-0035]; PLA sheet), teaches that the nonwoven sheet has a width of about 110 mm to about 160 mm (Table 3 teaches that the sheet width may be 115mm or 145mm. The claimed range overlaps the values taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious). Lemmouchi further teaches that the width may be adjusted to influence the pressure drop of the filter ([0102]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter material of Crooks by having a nonwoven sheet with a width of about 110 mm to about 160 mm as taught by Lemmouchi because both Crooks and Lemmouchi are directed to filter materials in the form of nonwoven sheets, Crooks is silent to an exact width of the nonwoven sheet and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable width, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Crooks teaches that the nonwoven sheet has a width that may vary ([0036]).
Crooks does not teach an exact width of the nonwoven sheet.
Lemmouchi, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element (Abstract), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0034-0035]; PLA sheet), teaches that the nonwoven sheet has a width of about 110 mm to about 160 mm (Table 3 teaches that the sheet width may be 115mm or 145mm. The claimed range overlaps the values taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious). Lemmouchi further teaches that the width may be adjusted to influence the pressure drop of the filter ([0102]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter material of Crooks by having a nonwoven sheet with a width of about 115 mm to about 150 mm as taught by Lemmouchi because both Crooks and Lemmouchi are directed to filter materials in the form of nonwoven sheets, Crooks is silent to an exact width of the nonwoven sheet and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable width, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, Crooks does not explicitly teach a hardness of the one or more segments of filer material.
Lemmouchi, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element (Abstract), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0034-0035]; PLA sheet), teaches that the one or more segments of filter material have a hardness of about 75 percent or higher (Tables 1 and 2 teach hardness ranging from 84.35% to 93.42%, which anticipates the claimed range). Lemmouchi further teaches that sufficient hardness is required to ensure efficient manufacturing of the filter segments ([0036]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by making the filter material have a hardness of about 75 percent or higher as taught by Lemmouchi because both Crooks and Lemmouchi are directed to filter materials in the form of nonwoven sheets, Crooks is silent to an exact hardness of the filter material segments and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable hardness, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Lemmouchi, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element (Abstract), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0034-0035]; PLA sheet), teaches that the one or more segments of filter material have a hardness of about 80 percent or higher Tables 1 and 2 teach hardness ranging from 84.35% to 93.42%, which anticipates the claimed range). Lemmouchi further teaches that sufficient hardness is required to ensure efficient manufacturing of the filter segments ([0036]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by making the filter material have a hardness of about 80 percent or higher as taught by Lemmouchi because both Crooks and Lemmouchi are directed to filter materials in the form of nonwoven sheets, Crooks is silent to an exact hardness of the filter material segments and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable hardness, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Lemmouchi, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element (Abstract), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0034-0035]; PLA sheet), teaches that the one or more segments of filter material have a hardness of about 85 percent or higher (Tables 1 and 2 teach hardness ranging from 84.35% to 93.42%, which anticipates the claimed range). Lemmouchi further teaches that sufficient hardness is required to ensure efficient manufacturing of the filter segments ([0036]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by making the filter material have a hardness of about 75 percent or higher as taught by Lemmouchi because both Crooks and Lemmouchi are directed to filter materials in the form of nonwoven sheets, Crooks is silent to an exact hardness of the filter material segments and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable hardness, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lisauskas (US 20150374030 A1) in view of Peter et al. (US 20090301503 A1) and Matsumura et al. (US 5678577 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lisauskas teaches a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device (filter element 20; [0049-0050]), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers selected from the group consisting of regenerated cellulose, hemp, sisal, kenaf, jute, flax, wood, and combinations thereof ([0012], [0058]), wherein the filter material further comprises a binder ([0013]), wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0012-0013]).
Lisauskas does not explicitly teach (I) that the binder is a pectin binder or (II) a denier per filament of the filter material.
Regarding (I), Peter, directed to a method of making a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device ([0012]), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers selected from the group consisting of regenerated cellulose, hemp, jute, flax, wood, and combinations thereof ([0194], [0199]), wherein the filter material further comprises a binder ([0280]), teaches that the binder may comprise pectin ([0282], [0284]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by using pectin as the binder in the filter material as taught by Peter because both Crooks and Peter are directed to filter materials comprised of a plurality of fibers and a binder, Peter teaches that pectin is a known binder for use in filter materials, and this involves substituting one alternative binder for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Matsumura, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device, the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers, wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet (Abstract; col. 3, lines 1-5), teaches a denier per filament of 1-10 for a tobacco filter (col. 7, lines 23-36). Matsumura further teaches that this denier per filament ensures manufacturability and efficiency of the filter.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lisauskas by making the filter material with a denier per filament of 1-10 as taught by Matsumura because both Lisauskas and Matsumura are directed to filter materials comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet, Lisauskas is silent to a denier per filament of the filter material and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable denier per filament for a filter material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The claimed denier per filament overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Lisauskas teaches that the nonwoven sheet is a wetlaid nonwoven sheet ([0019], claim 27), a drvlaid nonwoven sheet, or an airlaid nonwoven sheet ([0102-0104]).
Claims, 1 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Binassi et al. (US 20150189913 A1) in view of Peter et al. (US 20090301503 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Binassi teaches a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device (filtration material 16, filter 14; Abstract, [0001]), the filter material comprising a plurality of regenerated cellulose fibers (Abstract) in the form of a nonwoven sheet (randomly oriented staple fibers; [0019-0020]), wherein the filter material further comprises a binder ([0026]), and wherein the denier per filament (dpf) of the filter material is about 1 dpf to about 30 dpf ([0022] teaches a dpf of about 0.5 to about 8.0, which anticipates the claimed range).
Binassi does not explicitly teach that the binder is a pectin binder.
Peter, directed to a method of making a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device ([0012]), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers selected from the group consisting of regenerated cellulose, hemp, jute, flax, wood, and combinations thereof ([0194], [0199]), wherein the filter material further comprises a binder ([0280]), teaches that the binder may comprise pectin ([0282], [0284]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crooks by using pectin as the binder in the filter material as taught by Peter because both Crooks and Peter are directed to filter materials comprised of a plurality of fibers and a binder, Peter teaches that pectin is a known binder for use in filter materials, and this involves substituting one alternative binder for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Binassi teaches that the filter element exhibits a pressure drop in the range of about 40 mmWG to about 400 mmWG ([0019] teaches a pressure drop in the range of about 40 mmWG to about 250 mmWG. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 25, Binassi teaches that the filter element exhibits a pressure drop in the range of about 200 mmWG to about 300 mmWG ([0019] teaches a pressure drop in the range of about 40 mmWG to about 250 mmWG. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious).
Claims 1, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Potter et al. (US 20140261486 A1) in view of Mccormack et al. (US 20150059789 A1) and Peter et al. (US 20090301503 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Potter teaches a filter material (filter material 600; [0080]) adapted for use as a filter element ([0088]) in an aerosol delivery device (smoking article 500; [0080]), the filter material comprising a plurality of regenerated cellulose fibers ([0082]), wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet or a fibrous tow ([0082], [0095]), and wherein the denier per filament (dpf) of the filter material is about 1 dpf to about 30 dpf ([0088] teaches a denier per filament of about 4 to about 8 dpf, which anticipates the claimed range).
Potter does not explicitly teach that the filter material further comprises pectin as a binder.
Mccormack, directed to a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device ([0001]), comprising a plurality of fibers in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0004]), teaches that the filter material may include a binder to improve the strength of the sheet ([0014]). Mccormack further teaches that the binder may be water soluble ([0011]) to improve degradation ([0014]).
Peter, directed to a method of making a filter material adapted for use as a filter element in an aerosol delivery device ([0012]), the filter material comprising a plurality of fibers selected from the group consisting of regenerated cellulose, wood and combinations thereof ([0194], [0199]), teaches that filter materials may comprise binders such as pectin ([0280], [0282], [0284]), a water-soluble component.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Potter by (a) using a water soluble binder as taught by Mccormack and (b) using pectin as the water soluble binder as taught by Peter because both Potter and Mccormack are directed to filter materials comprising nonwoven sheets comprised of a plurality of fibers, Mccormack teaches that a water-soluble binder may be used to improve the strength and degradation of the sheet, Peter teaches that pectin is a known alternative water soluble binder for use in filter materials, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Potter teaches that the filter element comprises one or more segments of a filter material (see filter material 600; Fig. 4A) comprising a plurality of regenerated cellulose fibers ([0082]), wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0082], [0095]), and wherein the denier per filament (dpf) of the filter material is about 1 dpf to about 30 dpf ([0088] teaches a denier per filament of about 4 to about 8 dpf, which anticipates the claimed range).
Regarding claim 26, Potter teaches an aerosol delivery device (smoking article 500; [0018], [0080]) comprising a filter element ([0088]) that comprises one or more segments of a filter material (see filter material 600; Fig. 4A) comprising a plurality of regenerated cellulose fibers ([0082]), wherein the filter material is in the form of a nonwoven sheet ([0082], [0095]), and wherein the denier per filament (dpf) of the filter material is about 1 dpf to about 30 dpf ([0088] teaches a denier per filament of about 4 to about 8 dpf, which anticipates the claimed range).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/C.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755