DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2024 have been fully considered but they are partially persuasive.
Amendments resolve the 112(a) rejection. The 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues the Examiner used inherency to read on the potassium-salt-containing ion exchange solution of Watanabe to have the same pH as Fujiwara because of only overlapping in potassium salt. The Examiner disagrees because Fujiwara teaches the pH of the aqueous potassium solution for potassium nitrite [0133], potassium nitrate [0146, 176, 181, 184], and potassium hydroxide/carbonate [0168]. The breadth of claim 1 only requires an alkali metal salt in an aqueous solution consisting of potassium which is read on by the relied upon prior art. Similarly, claim 10 has breadth regarding the alkali metal salt selected from the group consisting of potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, and mixtures thereof; wherein the Fujiwara reference reads on the potassium nitrate limitation and the potassium chloride and mixture are optional and not required by the claim, because only one of the salts or the combination is required. Furthermore, the potassium salt aqueous solution of Fujiwara is for the same field of endeavor.
Applicant further argues the incompatibility of Fujiwara due to the phosphorus content in the glass composition. The instant claims have no mention of the glass composition. The argument is moot.
Applicant argues for claim 4, a surfactant is required from Watanabe’s reasoning. The Examiner reminds Applicant that the method claim uses consisting language related to the specifics of the aqueous ion exchange solution but does not have a negative limitation about the overall composition of the total method. The logic that Watanabe must have a surfactant wherein the instant claim is silent is moot when the rejection does not rely on the addition of the surfactant. It does not discredit Watanabe when the addition of a surfactant increases wettability of the potassium salt, when the instant specification has no mention or need for a surfactant.
Applicant argues claim 8 is not read on by Watanabe because the spray solution application temperature and pH limitation are not met. The Examiner disagrees because the argument of invalidating Fujiwara is not persuasive.
Applicant argues for claim 10/18 that Watanabe teaches away from etching. The Examiner disagrees. Watanabe teaches the etching achieves an opaque surface which may or may not be desired. The Examiner has provided an alternative reasoning for wanting to etch/use a caustic solution which has not been addressed by the Applicant. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The motivation can come from outside of the primary reference. As such, the combination of prior art for the rejection is maintained.
Due to amendments to claim 4 and 17, a new 103 rejection for the claim is warranted because the requirements have changed (the inclusion of the hydroxide-containing salt). Additionally, new claims need to be addressed. New claims 21-26 are examined therewithin; claims 21-22 are objected for depending from a rejected independent claim but contain allowable subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a heated environment” which is being treated under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 10 and 18 recite “a caustic solution”. The specification has not defined the material composition of said “caustic solution” and is thus given broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites “the hydroxide-containing salt includes a NaOH having a pH between 8 and 10”. The salt does not inherently have a pH unless in the aqueous solution. The limitation is interpreted as the hydroxide-containing salt includes NaOH and the aqueous solution has a pH between 8 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US-4206253-A) as evidenced by Fujiwara et al (US-20200055773-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches of an aqueous ion exchange strengthening method for strengthening a glass container (abstract) comprising: (a) exposing a surface of a glass container to an aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 4 Line 25-28) that comprises water and an alkali metal salt to coat the surface of the glass container with a coating of the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 5 Line 28-31; Col. 4 Line 18-21), the alkali metal of the alkali metal salt being potassium (Col. 5 Line 40); and (b) heat treating the surface of the glass container in a heated environment at a temperature that falls within 125-600°C (Col. 5 Line 60-61; Col. 9 Line 30-33).
Watanabe teaches that the aqueous solution can be derived from different potassium salts (Col. 4 Line 55-61) wherein the potassium salt is dissolved in water to prepare the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 5 Line 28-34). Watanabe does not expressly teach the pH of the aqueous ion exchange solution. In related ion exchange strengthening of glass art, Fujiwara teaches of spraying an aqueous solution to glass [0134] wherein potassium salt dissolved as an aqueous solution has a pH that overlaps the instantly claimed range [0133, 146, 159]. It would be anticipated by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe inherently has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range as taught by Fujiwara.
Because Watanabe teaches the potassium salt is dissolved in water and Fujiwara teaches the pH of the potassium salt dissolved in water has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range, the aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe transitively has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches that the mass fraction of the alkali metal salt is 10-80% by total mass of the dried coating (Col. 4 Line 37-40). Watanabe does not expressly teach the mass fraction of the alkali metal salt by mass of the aqueous solution. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches the aqueous ion exchange solution comprises at least one of potassium nitrate or potassium chloride (Col. 9 Line 20).
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches that the aqueous solution can be alkaline/caustic (Col. 2 Line 6-9; Col. 4 Line 67-Col. 5 Line 2: potassium hydroxide) should the artisan want to etch the glass for an opaque surface.
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches of exposing the surface of the glass container to the aqueous ion exchange solution at a temperature between 45-130°C for 30 minutes (Col. 9 Line 26-31), wherein the temperature overlaps and the time period is anticipated by the instantly claimed ranged.
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches the step of heat treating the glass container in a heated environment for 60 minutes (Col. 9 Line 32-34), which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 23, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches allowing the glass container to air dry and spraying the aqueous ion exchange solution again onto the surface of the glass container to coat the surface of the glass container with another coating of the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 8 Line 3-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-4206253-A) and Fujiwara et al (US-20200055773-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al (JP-2019199393-A, English translation provided by Espacenet, henceforth referred to as Fujiwara ‘393).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches the aqueous ion exchange solution consists of potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, and water (Col. 9 Line 20). Watanabe teaches potassium hydroxide is an alternative if the artisan does not mind an opaque surface (Col. 4 Line 67-Col. 5 Line 2). Fujiwara teaches of using an aqueous solution consisting of potassium nitrate [0146], potassium chloride [0132], hydroxide-containing salt [0128], and water (implied from aqueous [0134]) the pH falling within the instantly claimed range [0125]; Fujiwara does not expressly teach all 3 in an aqueous solution. In the same field of endeavor, Fujiwara ‘393 teaches of using an aqueous salt solution [0034] consisting of potassium nitrate [0031], hydroxide-containing salt (KOH or NaOH) [0031], and potassium chloride [0036]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the potassium nitrate and potassium chloride aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe with hydroxide-containing salt as means extend the life of the salt solution [0031]. Because all of the aqueous solution components are taught in Fujiwara, there is reasonable expectation that the aqueous solution (with all 3 components as taught by Fujiwara ‘393) falls within the same pH range taught by Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 4, Watanabe teaches exposing the surface of the glass container to the aqueous ion exchange solution comprises spraying the ion exchange solution onto the surface of the container (Col. 9 Line 26-30).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-4206253-A) and Fujiwara et al (US-20200055773-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lotze et al (US-20170073264-A1).
Regarding claim 24, depending from claim 1, Watanabe teaches of preheating at 130°C and heat treating at 505°C which does not fall within the instantly claimed range. In the same field of endeavor, Lotze teaches of spraying a potassium salt aqueous solution on glass [0063] and heat treating the glass at 300-350°C [0147]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known temperature ranges for a similar method.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-4206253-A) and Fujiwara et al (US-20200055773-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al (US-20130219966-A1).
Regarding claim 25, depending from claim 1, Fujiwara teaches of using a hydroxide-containing salt. Fujiwara is silent regarding the mol% of the hydroxide-containing salt in the ion exchange solution. In the same field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches of spray a hydroxide-containing salt aqueous solution onto glass [0075, 77] with a nitrate salt (such as potassium nitrate [0084, 86, 95]) containing 1.5 mol% hydroxide-containing salt [0085] which falls within the instantly claimed range. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known concentration range of hydroxide-containing salt for a similar ion exchange technique.
Regarding claim 26, depending from claim 25, Fujiwara teaches of using hydroxide-containing salt includes NaOH [0128] for the aqueous ion-exchange solution to have a pH in the instantly claimed range [0126].
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-4206253-A) and further in view of Bookbinder et al (US-20160145150-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe teaches of an aqueous ion exchange strengthening method for strengthening a glass container (abstract) comprising: (a) exposing a surface of a glass container to an aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 4 Line 25-28) at a temperature between 45-130°C for 30 minutes (Col. 9 Line 26-31) to coat the surface of the glass container with a coating of the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 5 Line 28-39; Col. 4 Line 18-21) that comprises water and an alkali metal salt, the alkali metal salt being potassium nitrate and potassium chloride and mixtures thereof (Col. 5 Line 40-44); (b) heat treating the surface of the glass container in a heated environment at a temperature that falls within 150-500°C (below the strain point; Col. 5 Line 58-65; Col. 8 Line 22-43); and (c) removing the glass container from the heated environment (Col. 9 Line 36; cooled and washed).
Watanabe does not expressly teach of exposing the surface of the glass container to a caustic solution prior to the step of exposing the surface of the glass container to the aqueous ion exchange solution. In related ion exchange of glass art, Bookbinder teaches of treating glass containers with a caustic solution prior to ion exchange [0034-37, 47-48] (aqueous solution comprising alkali hydroxides reading on caustic solution). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch the glass container with a caustic solution to remove surface flaws that act as stress concentration sites of the glass container that would be susceptible to crack initiation [0041].
Regarding claim 11-12, depending from claim 10, Watanabe teaches of mass ratio of potassium nitrate to potassium chloride of 1:2, 1:1, 1:3, 1:5, and 3:1 (Table 1 Example 1-4 and Control 4) which overlap the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 14, depending from claim 10, Watanabe teaches of exposing the surface of the glass container to the aqueous ion exchange solution at a temperature between 45-130°C for 30 minutes (Col. 9 Line 26-31), wherein the temperature overlaps and the time period is anticipated by the instantly claimed ranged.
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 10, Watanabe teaches the step of heat treating the glass container in a heated environment for 60 minutes (Col. 9 Line 32-34), which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe teaches of an aqueous ion exchange strengthening method for strengthening a glass container (abstract) comprising: (a) spraying a surface of a glass container to an aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 4 Line 25-28; Col. 9 Line 26-28) at a temperature between 45-130°C for 30 minutes (Col. 9 Line 26-31) to coat the surface of the glass container with a coating of the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 5 Line 28-39; Col. 4 Line 18-21) that comprises water and an alkali metal salt, the alkali metal salt being potassium nitrate and potassium chloride and mixtures thereof (Col. 5 Line 40-44); (b) heat treating the surface of the glass container in a heated environment at a temperature that falls within 150-500°C (below the strain point; Col. 5 Line 58-65; Col. 8 Line 22-43).
Watanabe does not expressly teach of exposing the surface of the glass container to a caustic solution prior to the step of exposing the surface of the glass container to the aqueous ion exchange solution. In related ion exchange of glass art, Bookbinder teaches of treating glass containers with a caustic solution prior to ion exchange [0034-37, 47-48] (aqueous solution comprising alkali hydroxides reading on caustic solution). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch the glass container with a caustic solution to remove surface flaws that act as stress concentration sites of the glass container that would be susceptible to crack initiation [0041].
Regarding claim 20, depending from claim 18, Watanabe teaches of mass ratio of potassium nitrate to potassium chloride of 1:2, 1:1, 1:3, 1:5, and 3:1 (Table 1 Example 1-4 and Control 4) which overlap the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 22, depending from claim 18, Watanabe teaches allowing the glass container to air dry and spraying the aqueous ion exchange solution again onto the surface of the glass container to coat the surface of the glass container with another coating of the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 8 Line 3-15).
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-4206253-A) and Bookbinder et al (US-20160145150-A1) as applied to claim 10 and 18 above, and and as evidenced by Fujiwara et al (US-20200055773-A1).
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 10, Watanabe teaches that the aqueous solution can be derived from different potassium salts (Col. 4 Line 55-61) wherein the potassium salt is dissolved in water to prepare the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 5 Line 28-34). Watanabe does not expressly teach the pH of the aqueous ion exchange solution. In related ion exchange strengthening of glass art, Fujiwara teaches of spraying an aqueous solution to glass [0134] wherein potassium salt dissolved as an aqueous solution has a pH that overlaps the instantly claimed range [0133, 146, 159]. It would be anticipated by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe inherently has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range as evidenced by Fujiwara.
Because Watanabe teaches the potassium salt is dissolved in water and Fujiwara teaches the pH of the potassium salt dissolved in water has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range, the aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe transitively has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 18, Watanabe teaches that the aqueous solution can be alkaline/caustic (Col. 2 Line 6-9; Col. 4 Line 67-Col. 5 Line 2: potassium hydroxide) should the artisan want to etch the glass for an opaque surface. Watanabe does not expressly teach the aqueous ion exchange solution have a pH of 8 or greater. In the same field of endeavor, Bookbinder teaches of etching/cleaning the glass article in a high pH/caustic solution [0034-35]. Watanabe teaches that the aqueous solution can be derived from different potassium salts (Col. 4 Line 55-61) wherein the potassium salt is dissolved in water to prepare the aqueous ion exchange solution (Col. 5 Line 28-34). Watanabe does not expressly teach the pH of the aqueous ion exchange solution. In related ion exchange strengthening of glass art, Fujiwara teaches of spraying an aqueous solution to glass [0134] wherein potassium salt dissolved as an aqueous solution has a pH that overlaps the instantly claimed range [0133, 146, 159]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe inherently has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range as evidenced by Fujiwara.
Because Watanabe teaches the potassium salt is dissolved in water and Fujiwara teaches the pH of the potassium salt dissolved in water has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range, the aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe transitively has a pH that falls within the instantly claimed range. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-4206253-A) and Fujiwara et al (US-20200055773-A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al (JP-2019199393-A, English translation provided by Espacenet, henceforth referred to as Fujiwara ‘393).
Regarding claim 17, depending from claim 10, Watanabe teaches the aqueous ion exchange solution consists of potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, and water (Col. 9 Line 20). Watanabe teaches potassium hydroxide is an alternative if the artisan does not mind an opaque surface (Col. 4 Line 67-Col. 5 Line 2). Fujiwara teaches of using an aqueous solution consisting of potassium nitrate [0146], potassium chloride [0132], hydroxide-containing salt [0128], and water (implied from aqueous [0134]) the pH falling within the instantly claimed range [0125]; Fujiwara does not expressly teach all 3 in an aqueous solution. In the same field of endeavor, Fujiwara ‘393 teaches of using an aqueous salt solution [0034] consisting of potassium nitrate [0031], hydroxide-containing salt (KOH or NaOH) [0031], and potassium chloride [0036]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the potassium nitrate and potassium chloride aqueous ion exchange solution of Watanabe with hydroxide-containing salt as means extend the life of the salt solution [0031]. Because all of the aqueous solution components are taught in Fujiwara, there is reasonable expectation that the aqueous solution (with all 3 components as taught by Fujiwara ‘393) falls within the same pH range taught by Fujiwara.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 21, a primary reason why it is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record Watanabe (US-4206253-A), Bookbinder et al (US-20160145150-A1), and Fujiwara et al (US-20200055773-A1) as instantly claimed is that while the prior art does not show the mol% in the instantly claimed range. Hasegawa et al (US-20130219966-A1) teaches of 1.5 mol% of hydroxide salt with potassium nitrate [0085, 75]. Qin et al (CN-108689621-A) teaches of 1-3 wt% of KOH for a cesium-potassium aqueous ion-exchange solution to be sprayed, wherein the inclusion of cesium may be desirable to the instant invention but outside of the scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-4021218-A can be used in substitution of the primary reference, also teaching the caustic solution
US-20140154438-A1 can be used as a primary reference that teaches the mass fraction limitation of claim 2
US-3473906-A, US-3844754-A, US-4273832-A teaches of annealing potassium salt coated glass bottle within the instantly claimed ion exchange temperature
US-4434191-A teaches of exposing a caustic solution to glass for reduction of reflection followed by ion exchange in molten salt
US-4872896-A teaches of coating glass with a potassium salt and microwave radiation heat treating the glass container to ion exchange strengthen the glass
US-20200055773-A1 teaches of an aqueous solution with pH above 7.0 with potassium hydroxide prior to ion exchange treatment
US-5654057-A teaches caustic/hydroxide-containing coating of glass prior to thermal treatment less warping in the final product
US-20170183259-A1 teaches spray an aqueous potassium salt solution, such as KOH, on glass to be evaporated and heat treated
JP-2001278640-A teaches a high pH solution is preferred for aqueous ion exchange to prevent the smaller ions to exchange back into the glass matrix
US-3529946-A teaches of low pH aqueous ion exchange solution for glass
CN-107074630-A teaches of using an aqueous vapor of KNO3, KCl, and KOH
WO-2018043361-A1 teaches of potassium nitrate aqueous solution in the pH range for ion exchange
CN-107935377-A teaches of boiling glass in a 1M NaOH solution for ion exchange
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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
