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 .
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.
Claims 9 and 10 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.
In reference to claims 9 and 10, the limitation “the polymeric material” is recited in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the polymeric material is meant to refer to the extruded sheet of polymeric material of the first formed sheet, the extruded sheet of polymeric material of the second formed sheet, the sheet of extruded polymeric material of the upper outside wall, the sheet of extruded polymeric material of the lower outside wall, the sheet of extruded polymeric material of the intermediate wall, or a combination of some or all of the sheets of extruded polymeric material. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the polymeric material will be interpreted as a polymeric material of the sheet of extruded polymeric material forming each of the upper outside wall, the lower outside wall, the intermediate wall, the first formed sheet and the at least one second formed sheet. However, clarification is requested.
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 5-7, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orologio (US 2019/0134941) in view of Stofferis (WO 2012/046127).
In reference to claims 5-7, Orologio teaches an insulation sheet for thermally insulating objects ([0002]) (corresponding to a sheeting). FIG. 11, provided below, shows an insulative assembly including the following layers sequentially stacked a polyethylene film, a polyethylene bubbled film, a polyethylene film, a polyethylene bubble film and a polyethylene film ([0080]-[0085]) (corresponding to an upper outside wall, a lower outside wall, and an intermediate wall each formed from a sheet of polymeric material; a first formed sheet, the first formed sheet being formed from a polymeric material including multiple recesses and/or channels formed in opposing sides of the extruded sheet of polymeric material in a symmetrical repeat pattern; at least a second formed sheet, the second formed sheet being formed from a polymeric material including multiple recesses and/or channels formed in opposing sides of the extruded sheet of polymeric material in a symmetrical repeat pattern; the intermediate wall is fixed between the first formed sheet and the second formed sheet and the first formed sheet and the second formed sheet are fixed between the upper outside wall and the lower outside wall). The polyethylene bubble film includes a plurality cavities or bubbles ([0094]; FIG. 11) (corresponding to multiple recesses and/or channels).
Orologio does not explicitly teach at least some of the bubbles of polyethylene bubble film are at least partially filled with a further material, as presently claimed.
Stofferis teaches a composite plate comprising at least one core of sheet material wherein cavities are integrally formed by thermoforming and filled with a filling material (p. 2, lines 15-19) (corresponding to the recesses and/or channels are at least partially filled with a further material). The filling materials can be chosen for physical or chemical or mechanical properties or a combination thereof, for example to enhance mechanical strength (p. 3, lines 1-4) (corresponding to a further material providing improved strength, resilience, resistance and/or thermal properties of the sheeting). Stofferis further teaches the filler material is a superinsulation providing good insulation (p. 6, line 27 - p. 7, line 2) (corresponding to the further material provides reduced thermal conductivity of the sheeting).
In light of the motivation of Stofferis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include the filling material in the cavities or bubbles of the polyethylene bubble film of Orologio, in order to provide enhanced properties, such as enhanced mechanical strength or good insulation to the insulation sheet.
Although Orologio in view of Stofferis does not explicitly teach the polyethylene films and polyethylene bubble films are extruded films, the bubble films are thermoformed or vacuum-formed and the filling material is filled by cascade filling or waterfall filling, as presently claimed. It is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
301
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Orologio in view of Stofferis meets the requirements of the claimed product, Orologio in view of Stofferis clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
In reference to claim 9, Orologio in view of Stofferis teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Orologio teaches the films are made of polyethylene ([0080]-[0085]) (corresponding to the polymeric material is polyethylene).
In reference to claim 15, Orologio in view of Stofferis teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above.
Orologio in view of Stofferis does not explicitly teach the bubbles are hexagon-shaped. However, Orologio teaches the shape and arrangement of the cavities or bubbles in the film may be as suitably determined by the skilled person ([0094]).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the bubbles be hexagon-shaped, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orologio in view of Stofferis as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hoshino (US 2018/0304572).
In reference to claim 10, Orologio in view of Stofferis teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above.
Orologio in view of Stofferis does not explicitly teach the polyethylene films are a composite material including high density polyethylene and a calcium carbonate additive, as presently claimed.
Hoshino teaches a hollow-structure plate that is easy to process while retaining compressive strength ([0001]). The hollow-structure plate includes a hollow convex portion-formed sheet made of a thermoplastic resin sheet with a plurality of hollow convex portions on at least one surface ([0034]). The thermoplastic resin from the viewpoints of processibility, cost, weight and physical properties includes polyethylene such as high density polyethylene (HDPE) ([0065]-[0066]). The thermoplastic resin is blended with filler such as calcium carbonate ([0067]) (corresponding to the polymeric material is a composite material including high density polyethylene and a calcium carbonate additive).
In light of the motivation of Hoshino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the polyethylene films of Orologio in view of Stofferis be HDPE blended with calcium carbonate, in order to provide polyethylene films with good processibility, cost, weight and physical properties, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orologio in view of Stofferis as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ghali (US 2015/0274390).
In reference to claims 12 and 18-19, Orologio in view of Stofferis teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above.
Orologio in view Stofferis does not explicitly teach channels interconnected between the cavities of the bubbles, as presently claimed. However, Orologio teaches the shape and arrangement of the cavities or bubbles in the film may be as suitably determined by the skilled person ([0094]).
Ghali teaches a heat-insulation material comprising a sheet of at least one layer of closed-cell gas bubbles ([0008]). The sheet of closed-cell gas bubbles if fabricated of polyethylene ([0008]). Fig. 1, provided below, shows the bubble pack layers 12 include channels interconnected between the recesses in a repeating pattern (corresponding to an upper side of the first formed sheet and/or the second formed sheet includes the channels interconnected between the recesses; the recesses and channels are formed on the formed sheet in a tessellated pattern; the tessellated pattern on the formed sheet is surrounded by a flat or non-pattered portion of the formed sheet). Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that the bubble film and the sheet of closed-cell gas bubbles are functional equivalents for providing a thermally insulating sheet material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have used the cellular structure of the bubble sheet of Ghali for the bubble film of Orologio in view of Stofferis because both elements were known equivalents for providing a bubble layer in thermally insulating sheets.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing electrical connectivity to the semiconductor device.
In reference to claim 20, Orologio in view of Stofferis teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above.
Orologio in view of Stofferis does not explicitly teach the thermally insulated sheet comprises packaging sheeting, as presently claimed.
Ghali teaches a heat-insulating material comprising at least one layer of closed-cell gas bubbles ([0008]). The insulation material is useful in the manufacturing of packaging materials for items which must be kept cold during shipping, such as foods, medicine and biological material ([0009]).
In light of the disclosure by Ghali of using the heat-insulating sheet as a packaging material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to use the thermally insulating sheet of Orologio in view of Stofferis as a packaging material, in order to provide a thermally insulating sheet to insulate a material being shipped, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orologio in view of Stofferis as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nishisaka et al. (JP 2006-103027) (Nishisaka).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 2006-103027 with the Office Action mailed 05/16/2025. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 13 and 14, Orologio in view of Stofferis teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above.
Orologio in view of Stofferis does not explicitly teach at least one edge of the thermally insulating sheet is sealed, as presently claimed.
Nishisaka teaches a laminated sheet in which an intermediate sheet having a hollow convex portion is laminated so that both sides of the intermediate sheet are sandwiched between a top sheet and a back sheet ([0001]). The outer periphery of the laminated sheet is curved such that the outer periphery of the front sheet and the outer periphery of the back sheet are curved relative to each other and the end faces are joined to each other ([0012]) (corresponding to at least one edge of the sheeting is sealed). As a result the outer periphery of the laminated sheet has a good appearance ([0012]). The laminated sheet is sandwiched between an upper welding horn and a lower welding horn heated and pressed to form the curved outer periphery ([0035]) (corresponding to the at least one edge of the sheeting is sealed by heat crimping or heat compression).
In light of the motivation of Nishisaka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to provide the outer periphery of the sheet of Orologio in view of Stofferis with a curved outer periphery, in order to provide a sheet that has a good appearance, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Additionally, it is noted that claim 14 defines the product by how the product is made. Therefore, claim 14 is a product-by-process claim. For the purpose of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having at least one edge of the sheeting being sealed. Orologio in view of Stofferis and Nishisaka suggests such a product.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claims 7, 9-10, 12 and 18-19 the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of record are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections, as discussed above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“However, Orologio does not relate to package sheeting at all and instead relates to house wraps and sheeting, which are fundamentally different and provide distinct constraints. The entire goal of the house wrap of Orologio is to provide ‘breathable’ insulation sheet for wrapping a house designed for positioning between exterior sheeting of the house and stud walls to prevent moisture from reaching the stud walls. The Orologio house wrap is designed to allow the transmission of moisture vapor from the interior of the metal foil or metalized bubble-pack insulative layer to escape while inhibiting moisture and/or air from an exterior side to enter. This is achieved by providing an insulated layer of a reflective metal foil or metalized polymeric insulating material having substantially one-way moisture transference features in the form of apertures located in the insulating layer. The apertures are generally frusto-conically shaped, having broader opening base dimension and a narrower apex opening dimension.
These apertures of Orologio are therefore fundamental to the house wrap of the cited reference, but would undermine the integrity of the claimed package sheeting. Indeed, the incorporation of the apertures of Orologio would have a negative impact on the desirable properties of the claimed sheeting, such as insulation, strength, or water resistance. Orologio therefore attempts to mitigate the negative impact of the apertures on the insulating properties of the house wrap by carefully locating the apertures such that they avoid piercing the bubbles of the sheeting. Indeed, Para. [0094] and FIG. 17, identified by the Office, illustrate a complex machine designed to form the bubbles and then pierce the sheeting ‘[i]n order to form the frusto- conical apertures 130 between in the spaces 118 interposed between the bubbles 119 ...’
This approach becomes even more difficult in the context of sheeting with multiple internal layers, such as in FIG. 11 identified by the Office. Accordingly, FIG. 11 does not show the incorporation of the apertures 130, and the reference does not discuss that embodiment or any corresponding machinery at all. The related FIG. 5 shows the sheets the bubbled films 18 carefully aligned such that apertures 130 can be applied between the bubbled portions of both films. Accordingly, Orologio appears to use individual bubbled films aligned and pierced by some frusto-conical aperture forming roller 332. In some embodiments of Orologio, carefully selected bubbles may be pierced, but such an approach similarly requires careful coordination.”
Remarks, p. 8-9
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Orologio teaches the breathable insulation sheet is for thermally insulating objects ([0002]). While Orologio teaches using the sheeting for house wraps, Orologio does not exclude using the sheeting as a insulation sheet for other objects or for use as package insulation sheeting. Further, with respect to claim 20 requiring the sheeting comprises packaging sheeting, it is noted that the examiner agrees that Orologio in view of Stofferis does not explicitly teach the thermally insulated sheet comprises packaging sheeting. However, Ghali is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Orologio in view of Stofferis.
Alternatively, if the Applicant is arguing the end use of the sheeting is for packaging. It is noted that the claimed sheeting for packaging would be intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Given that Orologio in view of Stofferis teaches a sheet as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, it is clear that the sheet of Orologio in view of Stofferis would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. used as a sheeting in packaging.
Further, the open language of the claims (i.e., comprising) does not exclude the claimed sheeting from including apertures. In fact, the claims recite the first formed sheet and the second formed sheet include multiple recesses and/or channels. The broadest reasonable interpretation of channel is a usually tubular enclosed passage, which would read on a frusto-conical aperture.
The Applicant further argues:
“The Office acknowledges, at page 6 of the Office Action, that Orologio does not teach that the bubbles of the polyethylene bubble film are at least partially filled with a further material. In fact, filling the bubbles of Orologio would be incompatible with the structure and the manufacturing method of Orologio. In fact, the bubbles are formed via suction, presumably in a similar manner to traditional bubble wrap. Further, because the bubbles in the bubble films 18 must allow for piercing by the aperture forming roller, the bubbles form a minimal amount of the bubble films 18, and all bubbles appear on the same side. The bubbled sheet 19 therefore could not be provided with a symmetrical pattern including recesses or channels on opposing sides, such as that claimed. Accordingly, Orologio does not provide recesses and or channels formed in opposing sides of the extruded sheet of polymeric material in a symmetrical repeat pattern. Indeed, the reference could not provide such a structure, since it would then not be able to provide the apertures that are critical to the reference.”
Remarks, p. 9-10
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Orologio teaches in some embodiments cavities of the bubble layer can be plugged ([0098]; [0099]). Therefore, it is clear that filling the bubbles would not be incompatible with the structure and the manufacturing methods of Orologio.
Additionally, Orologio and Stofferis are both drawn to layer structures including layers having cavities. Stofferis provides proper motivation to combine, namely, to provide enhanced properties, such as enhanced mechanical strength and good insulation to the insulation sheet. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is the examiner’s position that there would be a reasonable expectation of success when combining the references.
Further, FIG. 11 shows the bubbled film 18 includes a corrugated structure. Thus it is clear the bubbled sheet includes a plurality of cavities (i.e., recesses) on opposite sides of the film in a symmetrical repeat pattern. Alternatively, FIG. 3A shows an embodiment in which the bubble pack arrays 112, 114 include a plurality of recesses and channels (i.e., openings 134, 133) in a symmetric pattern. The openings extend through the bubble pack arrays. Therefore, it is clear the channels are formed in opposing sides of the film.
The Applicant further argues:
“Orologio could not provide a structure that would allow for such filling, since the relevant layer is created as sealed bubble sheeting. Further, because the bubbles of the bubbled sheeting 18 of Orologio are necessarily isolated from each other, even if they could be filled, they could not be filled by way of a cascading or waterfall filling process. Similarly, the bubble sheeting 18 of Orologio could not provide recesses or channels that are symmetric on opposite sides in the manner claimed.
Further, the claimed pairing of the formed sheets with the intermediate and outer walls allows for the creation of recesses or channels without the need for additional material to fully enclose a recess or bubble. Orologio teaches just the opposite, as each of the individual bubbled sheets 18 contain encapsulated bubbles, therefore utilizing sufficient material to seal any resulting recesses or channels.”
Remarks, p. 10
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
As discussed above, Orologio teaches cavities of the bubble layer can be plugged ([0098]; [0099]). Thus, Orologio does provide a structure that would allow for filling the cavities.
As discussed in the rejection above, while Orologio in view of Stofferis does not explicitly teach the filling material is filled by cascade filling or waterfall filling, as presently claimed. It is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Orologio in view of Stofferis meets the requirements of the claimed product, Orologio in view of Stofferis clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
The Applicant further argues:
“Orologio instead relates to a house wrap, used during building construction. Accordingly, the field of endeavor is distinct.
Further, the art is not ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the problem addressed by the inventor. In fact, the art appears to teach away from any solution to the problem addressed. Orologio is not concerned with increasing the efficiency or ease of manufacturing while maintaining or increasing the flexibility of a packaging material, nor is it concerned with using less material that would otherwise be necessary. Instead, the reference explicitly defines a more complicated manufacturing process requiring specialized equipment. Such added complexity is explicitly provided in Orologio in order to increase the ‘breathability’ of the house wrap — a characteristic that is not desirable in the context of the claims. Further, in support of such ‘breathability,’ Orologio defines a structure, utilizing individual bubbled sheets 18, which necessarily utilizes more material than would otherwise be necessary in order to mitigate the negative effects of the added apertures. This too teaches away from the approach claimed and is not at all pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.”
Remarks, p. 11-12
The examiner respectfully traverses a--s follows:
A reference is considered analogous if it is either (1) in the same field of endeavor as the invention or (2) “reasonably pertinent” to the problem with which the inventor is involved. As per MPEP 2141.01 (a), “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent [or application at issue] can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). A reference in a field different from that of Applicant's endeavor may be reasonably pertinent if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his or her invention as a whole. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
While Orologio and the claimed invention may have different end uses, the fact remains, both Orologio and the claimed invention are drawn to polymeric layered structures. Therefore, Orologio is analogous art given that Orologio is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and/or is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e., a layered sheeting having regularly arranged cells and good thermal insulation properties.
Secondly, the claims do not limit the sheeting to only include an upper outside wall, a lower outside wall, an intermediate wall, a first formed sheet and a second formed sheet. The open language of the claims (i.e., comprising) does not show the claimed invention is concerned with using less material that would otherwise be necessary.
While Orologio includes additional layers such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of using less material that would otherwise be necessary. The additional layers of Orologio are necessary for the formation of the sheeting material taught by Orologio.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights