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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 1/13/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims, claim 15 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6, 11-19 and 21-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim limitations that are specifically addressed in the prior art rejection of record.
Applicant’s arguments directed against the Liu reference, arguing the reference does not disclose a porous metal sheet to which is applied a ceramic coating. The examiner disagrees and notes the composite sheet as disclosed by Liu includes porous metallic layers and porous YSZ layers and therefore includes layers of each material and thus includes ceramic layer (YSZ layer) on what can reasonably be considered a porous metal layer within the scope of the claim as drafted.
Examiner cites here as pertinent WO 200914775, which discloses the deposition of porous YSZ onto a porous metal layer (see pages 13-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16-19, 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for ceramic particles with NiO sintering promoter to incorporate the sintering promoter into the ceramic crystalline grain of the porous ceramic membrane, does not reasonably provide enablement for ceramic particles with a generic “sintering promotor” and chemically reacting such that the sintering promotor is incorporated into a ceramic crystalline grain of the porous membrane. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The nature of the invention involves application of ceramic particles including “a sintering promotor” selected from a seemingly infinite number of chemicals, and then chemically reacting with a gas and green ceramic coating to sinter the ceramic particles such that the sintering promotor is incorporated into a crystalline grain of the ceramic membrane. The state of the prior art is silent to various “sintering promotor” capable of being utilized in such a manner and while the skill of one ordinary in the art is relatively high, the claims required a chemical reactions and conversions of coatings and incorporation in the grain which is a highly exact science with little predictability. Additionally, while the specification clearly describes with sufficient specificity the application of the species of ceramic particles with NiO sintering promotor, followed by sintering, results in the proper incorporation of the included sintering promotor into the crystalline grain of the formed porous membrane, the specification fails to include any working examples or direction as to a representative number of species of the seemingly infinite number of possible “sintering promotor”, that would result in the proper incorporation of the sintering promotor into the crystalline grain without undue experimentation. This undue experimentation would encompass determining which compounds function as sintering promotors and which “sintering promotor” can be incorporated into a crystalline grain of the porous ceramic membrane by sintering as required by the present claims. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim 3 requires the sintering promotor to comprise “at least one of nickel, iron or cobalt” and that the “sintering promoter is uniformly distributed in the porous ceramic membrane” and while the scope of the sintering promotor appears to be more narrowly tailored, again, following the above analysis, Additionally, while the specification clearly describes with sufficient specificity the application of the species of ceramic particles with NiO sintering promotor, followed by sintering, results in the proper incorporation of the included sintering promotor into the crystalline grain of the formed porous membrane, the specification fails to include any working examples or direction as to a representative number of species of the seemingly infinite number of possible “sintering promotor” that comprises “at least one of nickel, iron or cobalt”, that would result in the proper incorporation of the sintering promotor into the crystalline grain and result such being “uniformly distributed” without undue experimentation. This undue experimentation would encompass determining which Ni, Fe or Co comprising compounds function as sintering promotors and which “sintering promotor” can be uniformly incorporated into a crystalline grain of the porous ceramic membrane by sintering as required by the present claims. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
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(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 11-14, 16-19 and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20110155662 by Liu et al. taken with RU 2424083 C1, hereinafter RU 083, JP 1143705, hereinafter JP 705 and WO 9954524, hereinafter WO 524 as evidenced by or further in view of WO 9015661, hereinafter WO 661.
Liu discloses a method for producing metal-based micro-porous structures comprising: feeding a solid green part and a gas flow into a tunnel reactor (0055), wherein a gas in the gas flow is substantially free of oxidants (0055 related to pure H2) and the green part has a characteristic diffusion mass transfer dimension less than 1 mm (thickness of green sheet less than 1 mm, see applicant’s specification, see 0048, 0069 related to green body thickness) and comprises a carrier, a ceramic coating on the carrier including particles (see YSZ coating at 0071-0073); Liu discloses the green part is a ceramic material (0071, see YSZ) deposited with a thickness of 10 to 200 microns (overlapping the claimed range and thus making obvious such, see above), a metal oxide particles/ceramic particles (0071), organic additive and a sintering promoter (0005-0006, Example, slurry preparation).
chemically reacting the gas in the gas flow and the green part under a predetermined temperature profile for a sufficient time (see e.g. examples, Table 4 related to an example of temperature profile for sufficient time) to convert the green part into a solid product having pore sizes in a range of 0.3 nm to 5 μm (see abstract related to pore size diameter, less than 2 microns) to form the solid product that comprises a sintered ceramic coating having a thickness less than 40 microns adhered to the carrier. Liu discloses a time period for heating (examples) and JP 705 discloses residency time in the furnace may be 10 to 60 minutes or 20 to 120 minutes (see page 11).
As for the range of thickness and pore size, the examiner notes that prior art discloses the thicknesses and pore size that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and thus make obvious the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie” inside ranges disclosed by prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 191 USPQ 90. See MPEP 2144.05.
Liu discloses green sheets into a sintering furnace for forming a porous metal/ceramic, such as 3” diameter tube furnace (0058) and the utilization of such as a filter (0012-0013) and forming a porous ceramic deposited onto the porous metal sheet (0013); however, fails to disclose the particulars of the formation of the porous ceramic onto the porous metal as it relates to the pore size and particle size. However, RU 083, also in the art of forming a filter by using a porous metal substrate with a porous ceramic layer thereon (description) and discloses forming the green ceramic layer directly on the porous metal sheet, wherein the pores of the metal sheet are not more than 30 microns and thus overlaps and make obvious the claimed range (description). RU 083 discloses depositing the ceramic green layer precursor including powder of particles and what can reasonably be considered a “sintering aid” within the scope the claims as drafted, wherein the particles of not more than 0.5 microns in a suspension. Ru 083 discloses thereafter sintering to form the ceramic layer with a thickness of not more than 10 microns, which overlaps and makes obvious the claimed range, and pore size of 0.2 microns (see description stating “ceramic layer thickness of not more than 10 microns with an average pore size of not more than 0.2 microns”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, as Liu discloses forming the porous metal sheet for filter formation and for a ceramic layer deposited thereon and RU 083 discloses a similar filter formation process (i.e. porous metal sheet with porous ceramic thereon) and discloses the ceramic particle suspension applied with a thickness as claimed to a porous metal support with pore size within the range as claimed and with particle size less than the pore size and one would expect to predictably form the filter as both Liu and RU 083 explicitly discloses the formation of filter membranes.
Liu discloses green sheets can be sintered in a sintering furnace for forming a porous metal/ceramic, such as 3” diameter tube furnace (0058); however, fails to disclose continuously feeding the green sheet into the tunnel furnace with an aspect ratio as claimed.
JP705, also in the art of forming a porous metal structure by sintering discloses using a tunnel furnace under a reducing atmosphere (see e.g. pages 11-12, Figure), similar to that as taught by Liu, and discloses using the tunnel furnace, Figure 2 and accompanying text, for the continuous feeding the green sheet and sintering to form the porous metal film using a belt furnace. Therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified the Liu with RU 083 to use the continuous furnace as taught by JP 705 to reap the benefits of forming a continuous sintered porous metal film.
As for the aspect ratio, the examiner notes that the prior art JP 705 discloses at Figure 2 a tunnel furnace with an aspect ratio within the claim range (i.e. length to height is greater than 2). At the very least, the size of the furnace and thus the aspect ratio, is a result effective variable directly effecting the efficiency of heating and sintering process, too large of a furnace will result in wasteful heating and too small a furnace and the strip will not be able to enter, as such the determination of the optimum furnace thickness, through routine experimentation, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art taking into consideration the length needed for heating as well as the size needed for supplying a substrate.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above with respect to Sinter Aid, the examiner cites here WO 661, also in the art of forming a porous ceramic from ceramic particles and discloses using ceramic particles of smaller particles size to act as a sintering aid and thus the particles themselves can reasonably be considered the claimed sintering aid (see page 4, lines 20-35). Alternatively, in view of WO 661, it would have been obvious to include a sintering aid, such as smaller particles, to permit the layer to be sintered at a lower temperature as specifically taught by WO 661.
The collection of prior art fails to explicitly disclose the sintering aid is incorporated into the particles after sintering; however, the breadth of this claim fails to explicitly define the metes and bounds of “incorporated into” and therefore this is merely a result of the claimed and disclosed process. Here, the prior art discloses the broadly drafted sintering aid in combination with ceramic powders and thereafter sintering to form the porous ceramic layer and therefore the prior art must necessarily have some degree of incorporation unless the applicant is using specific materials that are not required by the claims nor disclosed by the specification as being required to achieve this result. Additionally, the smaller particles of WO 661 would be incorporated into the particles of the instant claimed particles by the sintering process, i.e. does not block the pores created by the larger particles (see page 5, liens 1-5) and thus is incorporated at the grain/particle boundary, and as the smaller particles themselves are the ceramic, the smaller particles would be incorporated into a ceramic grain of the porous ceramic membrane.
Claim 2: The act of mixing the larger ceramic particles with smaller sintering promoting particles reads on the broadly drafted “impregnating” or “doping” the ceramic particles with the sintering promoter as instantly claimed, giving the term their broadest reasonable interpretation (i.e. the group of ceramic particles is impregnated with smaller particles).
Claim 3: JP 705 discloses gas supply and gas exhaust that will result in a gas flow and green part that moves countercurrent to each other in the tunnel reactor (see Figure 2, gas include 135, 137 and exhausts 129 and 130).
Claim 4: Liu discloses increasing to a reaction temperature greater than 500C for the complete conversion and decreasing to below 300C as claimed (see e.g. Table 4). Additionally, Liu disclose the temperature profile directly effecting the sintering process (see 0046, stating “the temperature and gas environment are critical conditions” to control the sintering process). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature profile through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of improved sintering.
Claim 6: RU 083 discloses a pore size with an average pore size of not more than 0.2 micron, which fully encompasses the claimed range and thus makes obvious such.
Claim 11: Liu with RU 083 and JP 705 discloses preheating a green part in a preheating section of a furnace having a first temperature profile; heating the green part in a reaction and sintering section of the furnace having a second temperature profile different than the first temperature profile; and during the heating of the green part, reacting a reactant gas with the green part to convert the green part into the porous structure. Specifically, the differing temperature profile is made obvious by Liu for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 4 above. See also Table 2 and Table 4 related to temperature profiles.
Claim 12: Liu discloses cooling as claimed Table 2, wherein the ramp rates/temperature profile of each are different. As for a cooling chamber, such exists in the process as taught by JP 705, where the cooling after heating occurs.
Claim 13: Liu discloses a heating to a temperature from 200 to 450 (300, 450), then a temperature from 500 to 1300 (800C), then to a temperature below 300 (Table 2 and Table 4). Additionally, Liu disclose the temperature profile directly effecting the sintering process (see 0046, stating “the temperature and gas environment are critical conditions” to control the sintering process). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature profile through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of improved sintering.
Claim 14: Liu discloses the rate of change (ramp) of temperature includes a first ramp, second ramp and third ramp that meets the claimed rate of change of temperatures (see Table 2, 0.5 c/min, 3 C/min and 5C/min or Table 4). Additionally, Liu disclose the temperature profile directly effecting the sintering process (see 0046, stating “the temperature and gas environment are critical conditions” to control the sintering process) and raising the temperature at various ramp rates to control the reduction process (0047). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature profile through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of improved sintering.
Claim 16: JP 705 discloses continuously moving the green part through the furnace and a reducing gas flows in a direction that is opposite a moving direction, See discussion above.
Claim 17 and 18: JP 705 discloses a gas curtain before the green sheet enters the furnace to remove air from the chamber, i.e. oxygen and supplying a curtain gas at the outlet (see Figure 2 and accompanying text), curtain gases would include “inert gas” as claimed, see JP 705 at page 4 stating “an inert gas such as nitrogen is blown from the curtain gas inlet” or at the very least, using inert gas as a curtain gas would have been obvious based on this teaching. While the reference does not disclose the removal reactant gas from the porous structure, the prior art discloses the inert gas is supplied to the substrate in what can reasonably be considered an outlet gas exchange chamber and thus the examiner notes that the prior art discloses all that active steps and thus would result in some degree of removal of any residual reactant gas.
Claim 19: JP 705 discloses continuously exhausting from the furnace gases after supplying the hydrogen into the chamber for reduction and sintering and such would include a product gas that is products by the reduction/reaction.
Claim 21: Liu with RU 083 and JP 705 discloses all that is taught above. Additionally, Liu discloses forming a green part by applying a first and second slurry, where the different slurries are applied so as to have a graded composition or pore structure such that the pore sizes differentiate (0011) and varying the particle size (0073); however, fails to explicitly discloses the second coating has a particle size less than the first particle size. However, Liu explicitly disclose the composition and the particles size will have a direct result on the properties of the film and that one can adjust the composition of the individual layers to achieve the desired properties including a first and second layer and therefore it would have been obvious to deposit a first layer and second layer with particles wherein the particles of the second layer are smaller than the first layer to reap the benefits of control over the grade of the structures.
Claim 22: As for the relative dimensions of the particles and porosity of the metal carrier, the examiner notes that the Liu reference discloses the average particle diameter and relative porosity of the various layers are selectable to achieve the desire structure and it would have been obvious as predictable to provide the desired pore structure, such as for filtration.
Claim 23: JP 705 discloses and makes obvious the continuously moving the green sheet through the tunnel reactor as claimed. As for the relative dimensions of the particles and porosity of the metal carrier, the examiner notes that the Liu reference discloses the average particle diameter and relative porosity of the various layers are selectable to achieve the desire structure and it would have been obvious as predictable to provide the desired pore structure, such as for filtration. Applicant’s have proffered no secondary considerations that the pore relationship and particle diameter is unexpected or unpredictable.
Claim 24: Liu discloses dispersant, solvent, binder to provided properties to the slurry (0040), where the solvent can reasonably be considered thermally unstable in the scope of the broadly drafted claim (i.e. evaporates by temperature).
Claim 25: JP 705 discloses gas supply and gas exhaust that will result in a gas flow and green part that moves countercurrent to each other in the tunnel reactor such that the continuous flow of gas will contact the green part (see Figure 2, gas include 135, 137 and exhausts 129 and 130). Liu discloses the various components are removed during the reducing/sintering/heating process to leave a coating with bonded together and adhered to the carrier (0046, 0071).
Claim 26: Liu discloses hydrogen gas (0047)
Claim 27: Liu discloses zirconia (YSZ).
Claim 28: As for the relative dimensions of the particles and porosity of the metal carrier, the examiner notes that the Liu reference discloses the average particle diameter and relative porosity of the various layers are selectable to achieve the desire structure and it would have been obvious as predictable to provide the desired pore structure, such as for filtration. Applicant’s have proffered no secondary considerations that the pore relationship and particle diameter is unexpected or unpredictable.
Claim 29: Liu discloses a heating to a temperature from 200 to 450 (300, 450), then a temperature from 500 to 1300 (800C), then to a temperature below 300 (Table 2 and Table 4). Additionally, Liu disclose the temperature profile directly effecting the sintering process (see 0046, stating “the temperature and gas environment are critical conditions” to control the sintering process). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature profile through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of improved sintering. As for the requirement of the exhaust outlet, such is taught by JP 705, which exhausts at each section (see Figure 2). As for the broadly drafted “heating zones” and “preheating section”, “sintering section” and “cooling section” the prior art discloses heating, sintering and cooling and such can reasonably considered zones and sections as claimed (i.e. the furnace can be broken into various zones and sections that meet the claims as drafted). Gradually cooling is not defined and as such, all cooling will be “gradual” as it compares to other faster cooling.
Claim 30: Liu discloses using the porous metal backbone provide the benefits of forming the porous sintered ceramic coating into a composite of multiple layers (i.e. without delamination) that is not fragile (i.e. without cracking or deformation), see 0073.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16-19 and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu with RU 083, JP 705 and WO 524 and further with Song et al. (Sintering behavior and mechanisms of NiO doped 8 mol% yttria stabilized zirconia).
Liu with RU 083, JP 705 and WO 524 as evidenced by WO 661 or further with WO 661 and Liu discloses YSZ coating for forming a porous ceramic layer (see discussion above); however, fails to explicitly discloses the sintering aid as claimed. While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above regarding the disclosure of WO 661, the examiner cites here Song, which discloses the YSZ particles are doped with NiO through wet chemical method and such a doping provide certain benefits to the sintering of the YSZ including The addition of a small amount of NiO was found to lower the onset sintering temperature of YSZ, and both early and intermediate-stage densification of YSZ is enhanced. NiO doping also promotes grain growth of YSZ (conclusion). Song discloses the doping NiO into the YSZ prior to sintering. Therefore, taking the references collectively, and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art one of ordinary skill in the art for sintering YSZ would have included a a NiO doping so as to reap the benefits associated with its inclusion as specifically set forth by Song.
Claim 2: NiO doping is taught by Song.
Claim 3: The dopant includes compounds of Ni as claimed. The collection of prior art fails to explicitly disclose the sintering aid is “uniformly distributed in the porous ceramic membrane”. Here, the prior art discloses the broadly drafted sintering aid in combination with ceramic powders and thereafter sintering to form the porous ceramic layer and therefore the prior art must necessarily have the same results unless the applicant is using specific materials that are not required by the claims nor disclosed by the specification as being required to achieve this result. A full review of the specification illustrates that NiO dopant with YSZ will have the uniform distribution as claimed and thus as the prior art specifically discloses NiO dopant with YSZ (and doped using Ni nitrates as disclosed), the results as claimed would naturally flow from using these materials.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu with RU 083, JP 705 and WO 524 as evidenced by WO 661 or further with WO 661 as applied above and further with JP 0360591, hereinafter JP 591.
Claims 12: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner notes JP 591 discloses a similar tunnel sintering apparatus that includes a degreasing zone and a sintering zone (similar to that of JP 705) and JP 591 discloses including a cooling zone (Figure) and thus including a cooling chamber as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as such is a known chamber for use in continuous sintering furnace. Liu discloses cooling as claimed Table 2, wherein the ramp rates/temperature profile of each are different zones.
Claim 13: Liu discloses a heating to a temperature from 200 to 450 (300, 450), then a temperature from 500 to 1300 (800C), then to a temperature below 300 (Table 2 and Table 4). Additionally, Liu disclose the temperature profile directly effecting the sintering process (see 0046, stating “the temperature and gas environment are critical conditions” to control the sintering process). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature profile through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of improved sintering.
Claim 14: Liu discloses the rate of change (ramp) of temperature includes a first ramp, second ramp and third ramp that meets the claimed rate of change of temperatures (see Table 2, 0.5 c/min, 3 C/min and 5C/min or Table 4). Additionally, Liu disclose the temperature profile directly effecting the sintering process (see 0046, stating “the temperature and gas environment are critical conditions” to control the sintering process) and raising the temperature at various ramp rates to control the reduction process (0047). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature profile through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of improved sintering.
Claim 29: Liu discloses a heating to a temperature from 200 to 450 (300, 450), then a temperature from 500 to 1300 (800C), then to a temperature below 300 (Table 2 and Table 4). Additionally, Liu disclose the temperature profile directly effecting the sintering process (see 0046, stating “the temperature and gas environment are critical conditions” to control the sintering process). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature profile through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of improved sintering. As for the requirement of the exhaust outlet, such is taught by JP 705, which exhausts at each section (see Figure 2). As for the broadly drafted “heating zones” and “preheating section”, “sintering section” and “cooling section” the prior art discloses heating, sintering and cooling and such can reasonably consider zones and sections as claimed (i.e. the furnace can be broken into various zones and sections that meet the claims as drafted)
Claim(s) 12-14 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu with RU 083, JP 705 and WO 524 and further with Song as applied above and further with JP 0360591, hereinafter JP 591.
These references are combined for the same reasons as set forth above and therefore make obvious claims 12-14 and 29 for the same reasons.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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 P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718