DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 11/20/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 are amended. Claims 10 and 11 are new.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 8 and 9, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 04/11/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluem et al. (US 2008/0055724 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bluem teaches polarizing fibers [0005], that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that in some embodiments, fibers formed of isotropic materials may also be present within the matrix [0026], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z-directions for the first fiber material maybe referred to as n1x, n1y, and n1z [0028], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z- directions for the second fiber material may be referred to as n2x, n2y, and n2z [0028], that where the material is isotropic, the x-, y-, and z-refractive indices are all substantially matched [0028], that where the first fiber material is birefringent, at least one of the x-, y-, and z- refractive indices is different from the others [0028], that within each fiber there are multiple interfaces formed between the first material and the second fiber material [0029], that when at least one of the first and second fiber materials is birefringent, the interface may be referred to as a birefringent interface [0029], that for example, if the two materials present their x- and y-refractive indices at the interface, and n1x ≠ n1y, i.e. the first material is birefringent, then the interface may be birefringent [0029], that the interface is said to be birefringent when the difference in refractive index at the interface is different for different directions [0030], that thus, for a birefringent interface, Δnx ≠ Δny, where Δnx = | n1x-n2x |, and Δny = | n1y-n2y | [0030], that for one polarization state, the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in the fibers may be relatively small [0031], that in some exemplary cases, the refractive index difference may be less than 0.05 [0031], that this condition is considered to be substantially index-matched [0031], and that this refractive index difference may be less than 0.03, less than 0.02, or less than 0.01 [0031], which reads on a fiber having a birefringence value of lower than 0.05, lower than 0.03, lower than 0.02, or lower than 0.01. Bluem teaches that suitable materials for use in the fibers include thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers that are transparent over the desired range of light wavelengths [0036], that suitable polymer materials may be amorphous, and may include homopolymer, copolymer, or blends there [0036], and that example polymer materials include epoxies [0036], which suggests selecting Bluem’s at least two polymer materials in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be amorphous epoxies. Since the only required ingredients of Bluem’s polarizing fibers are Bluem’s at least two polymer materials, and since the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.03(III)), Bluem suggests wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein the amorphous epoxy fiber consists essentially of two or more amorphous epoxy resins as claimed.
Bluem does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein the amorphous epoxy fiber consists essentially of two or more amorphous epoxy resins. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Bluem’s at least two polymer materials in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be amorphous epoxies. The proposed modification would read on wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein the amorphous epoxy fiber consists essentially of two or more amorphous epoxy resins as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of polarizing fibers that are suitable for Bluem’s polarizing fibers or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Bluem teaches that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that suitable materials for use in the fibers include thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers that are transparent over the desired range of light wavelengths [0036], that suitable polymer materials may be amorphous, and may include homopolymer, copolymer, or blends there [0036], and that example polymer materials include epoxies [0036]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Bluem does not teach with sufficient specificity that the fiber has a birefringence value of 0.005 or lower. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the difference between at least one of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices and the other of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices in Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be 0.005 or less, and/or to optimize the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be 0.005 or less. The proposed modification would read on the fiber having a birefringence value of 0.005 or lower as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing isotropic properties of Bluem’s polarizing fibers and/or Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s fibers because Bluem teaches that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that in some embodiments, fibers formed of isotropic materials may also be present within the matrix [0026], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z-directions for the first fiber material maybe referred to as n1x, n1y, and n1z [0028], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z- directions for the second fiber material may be referred to as n2x, n2y, and n2z [0028], that where the material is isotropic, the x-, y-, and z-refractive indices are all substantially matched [0028], that where the first fiber material is birefringent, at least one of the x-, y-, and z- refractive indices is different from the others [0028], that within each fiber there are multiple interfaces formed between the first material and the second fiber material [0029], that when at least one of the first and second fiber materials is birefringent, the interface may be referred to as a birefringent interface [0029], that for example, if the two materials present their x- and y-refractive indices at the interface, and n1x ≠ n1y, i.e. the first material is birefringent, then the interface may be birefringent [0029], that the interface is said to be birefringent when the difference in refractive index at the interface is different for different directions [0030], that thus, for a birefringent interface, Δnx ≠ Δny, where Δnx = | n1x-n2x |, and Δny = | n1y-n2y | [0030], that for one polarization state, the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in the fibers may be relatively small [0031], that in some exemplary cases, the refractive index difference may be less than 0.05 [0031], that this condition is considered to be substantially index-matched [0031], and that this refractive index difference may be less than 0.03, less than 0.02, or less than 0.01 [0031], which means that the difference between at least one of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices and the other of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices in Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s polarizing fibers and/or the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in Bluem’s polarizing fibers would have affected isotropic properties of Bluem’s polarizing fibers and/or Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s fibers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluem et al. (US 2008/0055724 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bluem teaches polarizing fibers [0005], that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that in some embodiments, fibers formed of isotropic materials may also be present within the matrix [0026], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z-directions for the first fiber material maybe referred to as n1x, n1y, and n1z [0028], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z- directions for the second fiber material may be referred to as n2x, n2y, and n2z [0028], that where the material is isotropic, the x-, y-, and z-refractive indices are all substantially matched [0028], that where the first fiber material is birefringent, at least one of the x-, y-, and z- refractive indices is different from the others [0028], that within each fiber there are multiple interfaces formed between the first material and the second fiber material [0029], that when at least one of the first and second fiber materials is birefringent, the interface may be referred to as a birefringent interface [0029], that for example, if the two materials present their x- and y-refractive indices at the interface, and n1x ≠ n1y, i.e. the first material is birefringent, then the interface may be birefringent [0029], that the interface is said to be birefringent when the difference in refractive index at the interface is different for different directions [0030], that thus, for a birefringent interface, Δnx ≠ Δny, where Δnx = | n1x-n2x |, and Δny = | n1y-n2y | [0030], that for one polarization state, the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in the fibers may be relatively small [0031], that in some exemplary cases, the refractive index difference may be less than 0.05 [0031], that this condition is considered to be substantially index-matched [0031], and that this refractive index difference may be less than 0.03, less than 0.02, or less than 0.01 [0031], which reads on a fiber having a birefringence value of lower than 0.05, lower than 0.03, lower than 0.02, or lower than 0.01. Bluem teaches that suitable materials for use in the fibers include thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers that are transparent over the desired range of light wavelengths [0036], that suitable polymer materials may be amorphous, and may include homopolymer, copolymer, or blends there [0036], and that example polymer materials include epoxies [0036], which suggests selecting Bluem’s at least two polymer materials in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be amorphous epoxies. Since the only required ingredients of Bluem’s polarizing fibers are Bluem’s at least two polymer materials, and since the transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (MPEP 2111.03(II)), Bluem suggests wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein a resin constituting the amorphous epoxy fiber consists of one or more amorphous epoxy resins as claimed.
Bluem does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein a resin constituting the amorphous epoxy fiber consists of one or more amorphous epoxy resins. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Bluem’s at least two polymer materials in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be amorphous epoxies. The proposed modification would read on wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein a resin constituting the amorphous epoxy fiber consists of one or more amorphous epoxy resins as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of polarizing fibers that are suitable for Bluem’s polarizing fibers or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Bluem teaches that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that suitable materials for use in the fibers include thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers that are transparent over the desired range of light wavelengths [0036], that suitable polymer materials may be amorphous, and may include homopolymer, copolymer, or blends there [0036], and that example polymer materials include epoxies [0036]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Bluem does not teach with sufficient specificity that the fiber has a birefringence value of 0.005 or lower. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the difference between at least one of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices and the other of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices in Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be 0.005 or less, and/or to optimize the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be 0.005 or less. The proposed modification would read on the fiber having a birefringence value of 0.005 or lower as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing isotropic properties of Bluem’s polarizing fibers and/or Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s fibers because Bluem teaches that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that in some embodiments, fibers formed of isotropic materials may also be present within the matrix [0026], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z-directions for the first fiber material maybe referred to as n1x, n1y, and n1z [0028], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z- directions for the second fiber material may be referred to as n2x, n2y, and n2z [0028], that where the material is isotropic, the x-, y-, and z-refractive indices are all substantially matched [0028], that where the first fiber material is birefringent, at least one of the x-, y-, and z- refractive indices is different from the others [0028], that within each fiber there are multiple interfaces formed between the first material and the second fiber material [0029], that when at least one of the first and second fiber materials is birefringent, the interface may be referred to as a birefringent interface [0029], that for example, if the two materials present their x- and y-refractive indices at the interface, and n1x ≠ n1y, i.e. the first material is birefringent, then the interface may be birefringent [0029], that the interface is said to be birefringent when the difference in refractive index at the interface is different for different directions [0030], that thus, for a birefringent interface, Δnx ≠ Δny, where Δnx = | n1x-n2x |, and Δny = | n1y-n2y | [0030], that for one polarization state, the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in the fibers may be relatively small [0031], that in some exemplary cases, the refractive index difference may be less than 0.05 [0031], that this condition is considered to be substantially index-matched [0031], and that this refractive index difference may be less than 0.03, less than 0.02, or less than 0.01 [0031], which means that the difference between at least one of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices and the other of Bluem’s x-, y-, and z- refractive indices in Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s polarizing fibers and/or the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in Bluem’s polarizing fibers would have affected isotropic properties of Bluem’s polarizing fibers and/or Bluem’s fiber material in Bluem’s fibers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, Bluem et al. (US 2008/0055724 A1) teaches polarizing fibers [0005], that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that in some embodiments, fibers formed of isotropic materials may also be present within the matrix [0026], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z-directions for the first fiber material maybe referred to as n1x, n1y, and n1z [0028], that the refractive indices in the x-, y-, and z- directions for the second fiber material may be referred to as n2x, n2y, and n2z [0028], that where the material is isotropic, the x-, y-, and z-refractive indices are all substantially matched [0028], that where the first fiber material is birefringent, at least one of the x-, y-, and z- refractive indices is different from the others [0028], that within each fiber there are multiple interfaces formed between the first material and the second fiber material [0029], that when at least one of the first and second fiber materials is birefringent, the interface may be referred to as a birefringent interface [0029], that for example, if the two materials present their x- and y-refractive indices at the interface, and n1x ≠ n1y, i.e. the first material is birefringent, then the interface may be birefringent [0029], that the interface is said to be birefringent when the difference in refractive index at the interface is different for different directions [0030], that thus, for a birefringent interface, Δnx ≠ Δny, where Δnx = | n1x-n2x |, and Δny = | n1y-n2y | [0030], that for one polarization state, the refractive index difference at the birefringent interfaces in the fibers may be relatively small [0031], that in some exemplary cases, the refractive index difference may be less than 0.05 [0031], that this condition is considered to be substantially index-matched [0031], and that this refractive index difference may be less than 0.03, less than 0.02, or less than 0.01 [0031], which reads on a fiber having a birefringence value of lower than 0.05, lower than 0.03, lower than 0.02, or lower than 0.01. Bluem teaches that suitable materials for use in the fibers include thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers that are transparent over the desired range of light wavelengths [0036], that suitable polymer materials may be amorphous, and may include homopolymer, copolymer, or blends there [0036], and that example polymer materials include epoxies [0036], which optionally reads on the fiber being an amorphous epoxy fiber as claimed.
Bluem does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, does not teach that the fiber has a single birefringence value, and does not teach with sufficient specificity that the fiber has a birefringence value of 0.005 or lower. Although Bluem teaches that suitable polymer materials may be amorphous, and may include homopolymer, copolymer, or blends there [0036], that example polymer materials include epoxies [0036], and that this refractive index difference may be less than 0.03, less than 0.02, or less than 0.01 [0031], Bluem teaches that within each fiber there are multiple interfaces formed between the first material and the second fiber material [0029], and that when at least one of the first and second fiber materials is birefringent, the interface may be referred to as a birefringent interface [0029], which means that Bluem’s fiber has more than one birefringent interface and that each birefringent interface has a refractive index difference, which means that Bluem’s fiber has more than one birefringence value. The prior art of record do not teach or suggest modifying Bluem’s fiber such that it has a single birefringence value. Furthermore, the prior art of record do not teach or suggest an amorphous epoxy fiber having a single birefringence value, wherein the single birefringence value is 0.005 or lower.
Since claim 5 recites a fiber structure comprising at least in part amorphous epoxy fibers as recited in claim 1, and since claim 1 is allowed, claim 5 is also allowed.
Since claim 7 recites a molded body comprising amorphous epoxy fibers as recited in claim 1, and since claim 1 is allowed, claim 7 is also allowed.
Since claim 8 recites a method for producing a molded body comprising; heating the amorphous epoxy fiber as recited in claim 1, and since claim 1 is allowed, claim 8 is also allowed.
Since claim 9 recites a method for producing a molded body comprising: heating the fiber structure as recited in claim 5, and since claim 5 is allowed, claim 9 is also allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 4, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 4-7, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluem et al. (US 2008/0055724 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluem et al. (US 2008/0055724 A1) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 4-7, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluem et al. (US 2008/0055724 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yamauchi et al. (JP 2014-114514 A, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation, made of record on 07/22/2022) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluem et al. (US 2008/0055724 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yamauchi et al. (JP 2014-114514 A, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation, made of record on 07/22/2022) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s argument that claims 10 and 11 are distinguishable from Bluem at least because the fiber of Bluem requires two different polymer materials, that there is no disclosure or suggestion in Bluem to limit the fiber to a single type of polymer material, such as one or more amorphous epoxy resins, and that such as limitation would not necessarily allow Bluem to achieve its aim of generating multiple internal birefringement interfaces within its fiber (p. 7), Claims 10 and 11 do not limit the fiber to a single type of polymer material. Claim 10 recites the limitation wherein the amorphous epoxy fiber consists essentially of one or more amorphous epoxy resins, which allows for two or more amorphous epoxy resins. Claim 11 recites the limitation wherein a resin constituting the amorphous epoxy fiber consists of one or more amorphous epoxy resins, which allows for two or more amorphous epoxy resins. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Bluem’s at least two polymer materials in Bluem’s polarizing fibers to be amorphous epoxies. The proposed modification would read on wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein the amorphous epoxy fiber consists essentially of two or more amorphous epoxy resins as claimed in claim 10, and would read on wherein the fiber is an amorphous epoxy fiber, wherein a resin constituting the amorphous epoxy fiber consists of one or more amorphous epoxy resins as claimed in claim 11. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of polarizing fibers that are suitable for Bluem’s polarizing fibers or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Bluem teaches that the polarizing fibers comprise at least two polymer materials, at least one of which is birefringent [0026], that in some exemplary embodiments, one of the materials is birefringent while the other material, or materials, is/are isotropic [0026], that in other embodiments, two or more of the materials forming the fiber are birefringent [0026], that suitable materials for use in the fibers include thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers that are transparent over the desired range of light wavelengths [0036], that suitable polymer materials may be amorphous, and may include homopolymer, copolymer, or blends there [0036], and that example polymer materials include epoxies [0036]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767