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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 06 April 2026 has been considered by the examiner. The examiner notes that in the IDS, JP 2006-312679 A was incorrectly listed as having a publication date of 2011-11-16; the examiner has annotated the IDS to reflect the correct publication date of JP 2006-312679 A, which is 2006-11-16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0031815 A1, “Singh”).
With respect to claims 1-2, Singh discloses a two-component curable adhesive comprising (a) a first component comprising a polyester-polycarbonate polyol and a solvent (corresponding to the claimed isocyanate-reactive component (b)) and (b) a second component comprising a reaction product of a polyol and an organic polyisocyanate (corresponding to the claimed at least one isocyanate component (a)) ([0011]). The first component (a) further includes a flow control agent ([0060]) that is a polyacrylic ester ([0065]) (i.e., an acrylic polymer). The first component (a) is present in an amount of 60-90% by weight of the two-component composition ([0012]); the second component (b) is present in an amount of 10-40% by weight of the two-component composition ([0013]). Thus, the ratio of the second component (b) to the first component (a) (corresponding to the claimed weight ratio of component (a) to component (b)) is 10/90 to 40/60, which is equivalent to 11/100 to 67/100, which overlaps the presently claimed range.
Singh does not disclose the polyester-polycarbonate polyol is crystalline. However, Singh discloses the physical state of the polyester-polycarbonate polyol can be controlled by the ratio of the ester and carbonate in the copolymer and that such control is important since it affects the viscosity and the processing of the adhesive ([0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the physical state of the polyester-polycarbonate polyol of Singh, including having a crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyol, in order to produce an adhesive with desired viscosity and having good processability.
Regarding the adhesive composition being used to form a laminate having an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), while there may be no explicit disclosure from Singh regarding the adhesive composition having an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), given that Singh discloses an otherwise identical adhesive composition made from otherwise identical components as that presently claimed, it is clear the adhesive composition of Singh would necessarily inherently have an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 3, Singh discloses the polyester-polycarbonate polyol is the reaction product of a polyester polyol and a polycarbonate polyol ([0014]) (i.e., the polyester-polycarbonate is the reaction product of at least one polyester polyol precursor and at least one polycarbonate polyol precursor).
With respect to claims 4-5 and 7, Singh discloses the polyester polyol is made from reacting an organic acid such as adipic acid with a glycol such as butanediol ([0015-0017]) while the polycarbonate polyol is made by reacting an alkane diol such as butanediol with dimethyl carbonate ([0024-0026]).
With respect to claim 6, Singh discloses the polyisocyanate includes hexamethylene diisocyanate, diphenylmethane diisocyanate, and 2,4- and/or 2,6-toluene diisocyanate ([0047]).
With respect to claim 9, Singh discloses the solvent includes ethyl acetate and methyl ethyl ketone ([0042]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0031815 A1, “Singh”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brinkman et al. (US 2013/0018146 A1, “Brinkman”).
With respect to claim 8, while Singh discloses the use of an acrylic flow control agent as set forth above, Singh does not disclose wherein the at least one acrylic polymer compound comprises the compounds presently claimed.
Brinkman teaches a two-component urethane system ([0001]) comprising a hydroxy-functional acrylic polymer as a flow aid, where the polymer is made from monomers including alkyl acrylate and acrylic acid (i.e., is an acrylic copolymer made of a monomer including acrylic acid). The flow aid produces a uniform coating of adhesive on a film ([0012]).
Singh and Brinkman are analogous inventions in the field of two-component urethane compositions containing acrylic-based flow agents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acrylic flow agent of Singh to be the hydroxy-functional acrylic polymer made from alkyl acrylate and acrylic acid as taught by Brinkman in order to provide a uniform coating of adhesive on a film (Brinkman, [0012]).
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0031815 A1, “Singh”) in view of Schreckenberg et al. (GB 1 587 481, “Schreckenberg”).
With respect to claims 1-2, Singh discloses a two-component adhesive comprising (a) a first component comprising a polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyol and a solvent (corresponding to the claimed component (b)) and (b) a second component comprising a reaction product of a polyol and an organic polyisocyanate (corresponding to the claimed component (a)) ([0011]). The first component (a) further comprises a flow control agent ([0060]) that is a polyacrylic ester ([0065]) (i.e., an acrylic polymer). The first component (a) is present in an amount of 60-90% by weight of the two-component composition ([0012]); the second component (b) is present in an amount of 10-40% by weight of the two-component composition ([0013]). Thus, the ratio of the second component (b) to the first component (a) (corresponding to the claimed weight ratio of component (a) to component (b)) is 10/90 to 40/60, which is equivalent to 11/100 to 67/100, which overlaps the presently claimed range. The adhesive is used to bond or laminate substrates ([0075], [0099]).
However, Singh does not disclose wherein the polyester-polycarbonate polyol is a crystalline compound.
Schreckenberg teaches a polyester-diol bis-diphenol carbonate (page 2, lines 31-33) that are crystalline polyester/polycarbonates (page 8, lines 12-15). The polyester/polycarbonates exhibit good transparency, highly elastic properties, and outstanding elongation at break (page 8, lines 54-56) and high heat distortion temperature (page 12, lines 38-40).
Singh and Schreckenberg are analogous inventions in the field of polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyols.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyol of Singh to be the crystalline polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyol taught by Schreckenberg in order to provide a composition having good transparency, highly elastic properties, outstanding elongation at break, and high heat distortion temperature (Schreckenberg, page 8, lines 54-56; page 12, lines 38-40).
Regarding the adhesive composition being used to form a laminate having an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), while there may be no explicit disclosure from Singh in view of Schreckenberg regarding the adhesive composition has an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), given that Singh in view of Schreckenberg discloses an otherwise identical adhesive composition made from otherwise identical components as that presently claimed, it is clear the adhesive composition of Singh in view of Schreckenberg would necessarily inherently have an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claims 3-5, Schreckenberg discloses the polyester-diol bis-aryl carbonates are made by a process involving heating a polyester-diol (i.e., a polyester polyol precursor) and a carbonic acid bis-aryl ester (i.e., a polycarbonate polyol precursor) (page 3, lines 45-54). The polyester diols include those made from adipic acid, sebacic acid, ethylene glycol, butylene 1,4-glycol (i.e., 1,4-butanediol), hexane-1,6-diol (i.e., 1,6-hexanediol), cyclohexanedimethanol, and diethylene glycol (page 4, lines 17-37). The carbonic acid bis-aryl ester includes those having the structure shown by formula (I) below, where Ar is an aryl group (page 4, lines 46-50), corresponding to the claimed diaryl carbonate.
PNG
media_image1.png
68
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula (I)
With respect to claim 6, Singh discloses the polyisocyanate includes hexamethylene diisocyanate, diphenylmethane diisocyanate, and 2,4- and/or 2,6-toluene diisocyanate ([0047]).
With respect to claim 9, Singh discloses the solvent includes ethyl acetate and methyl ethyl ketone ([0042]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0031815 A1, “Singh”) in view of Schreckenberg et al. (GB 1 587 481, “Schreckenberg”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brinkman et al. (US 2013/0018146 A1, “Brinkman”).
With respect to claim 8, while Singh in view of Schreckenberg discloses the use of an acrylic flow control agent as set forth above, Singh does not disclose wherein the at least one acrylic polymer compound comprises the compounds presently claimed.
Brinkman teaches a two-component urethane system ([0001]) comprising a hydroxy-functional acrylic polymer as a flow aid, where the polymer is made from monomers including alkyl acrylate and acrylic acid (i.e., is an acrylic copolymer made of a monomer including acrylic acid). The flow aid produces a uniform coating of adhesive on a film ([0012]).
Singh in view of Schreckenberg and Brinkman are analogous inventions in the field of two-component urethane compositions containing acrylic-based flow agents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acrylic flow agent of Singh in view of Schreckenberg to be the hydroxy-functional acrylic polymer made from alkyl acrylate and acrylic acid as taught by Brinkman in order to provide a uniform coating of adhesive on a film (Brinkman, [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment to claim 5, the objection to claim 5 is withdrawn.
Due to the cancellation of claim 10, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06 April 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Singh, Applicant argues the amended claims are non-obvious over the cited prior art. Specifically, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 utilizes a polyurethane adhesive composition that exhibits substantially reduced oxygen transmission rates and points to Table VIII for support. Applicant argues the results found in Table VIII are not predictable based off Singh because Singh allegedly does not disclose the polyurethane adhesive of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues Singh is directed to improving hydrolytic stability of polyurethane adhesive systems using non-crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyols, and emphasizes the need for adjusting the ratio of ester to carbonate units in order to control the viscosity and physical state of the copolymer for processing, and allegedly discourages the use of crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyol. Applicant argues Singh teaches away from using a crystalline polyester-polycarbonate diol because it allegedly characterizes crystalline polyester and polycarbonates as being solid at room temperature and implicitly disadvantageous for adhesive processing Applicant points to [0010] of Singh for support. Applicant further argues Singh does not provide any disclosure of producing an adhesive laminate structure comprising a crystalline polyester-polycarbonate diol compound that are solid, and does not disclose the claimed oxygen transmission rate. Applicant further alleges the examiner used impermissible hindsight reasoning when formulating the obviousness rejections. Applicant further argues Brinkman does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Singh and that Brinkman is directed to adhesive processability and bonding performance, and not oxygen barrier properties. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the data found in the specification demonstrates unexpectedly superior results, this is not found persuasive because the data is not commensurate in scope for the following reasons.
Firstly, the data relates to specific polyurethane adhesives made from specific crystalline polyester-polycarbonate diols. In particular, the data relates to specific polyester-polycarbonate polyols including PE-PC-1 having a molecular weight of 1,000 made from: 900.0 g of BESTER™ 86, 100.0 g of 1,4-butanediol-carbonate PC-1 having a molecular weight of 2,000, and 4.24 g of 1,4-butanediol (instant specification, page 13, Table III); PE-PC-2 having a molecular weight of 1,000 made from: 750.0 g BESTER™ 86, 250.0 g of 1,4-butanediol-carboante PC-1 having a molecular weight of 2,000, and 11.9 g 1,4-butanediol (instant specification, page 14, Table IV); PE-PC-3 having a molecular weight of 1,000 made from: 90 wt% BESTER™ 86 and 10 wt% of 1,4-butanediol-carbonate PC-2 having a molecular weight of 1,000 (instant specification, page 14, Table V). BESTER™ 86 is a poly(butanediol-adipate) having a molecular weight of 1,000, a melting point of about 50°C, and a hydroxyl number of 112 (instant specification, page 11, lines 22-23). PC-1 is a polycarbonate resin having a molecular weight of 2,000 made from 67,958.0 g 1,4-butanediol, 102,864.0 g of dimethyl carbonate, and 21.6 g of TYZOR® tetra-isopropyl titanate (instant specification, page 12, Table I), where TYZOR® tetra-isopropyl titanate is an organic alkoxy titanate (instant specification, page 11, lines 27-28). PC-2 is a polycarbonate resin having a molecular weight of 1,000 made from 1,200 g of 1,4-butanediol-carbonate PC-1 having a molecular weight of 2,000, and 60.5 g of 1,4-butanediol (instant specification, page 13, Table II). However, the present claims are broadly drawn to any polyurethane adhesive made from any crystalline polyester-polycarbonate diol having any molecular weight.
Secondly, the data relates to specific polyurethane adhesives made from a specific acrylic copolymer. In particular, the data relates to the use of MODAFLOW® (instant specification, page 12, Table VI), which is a specific (albeit undisclosed) acrylic copolymer (instant specification, page 11, lines 24-25). However, the present claims are broadly drawn to any polyurethane adhesive made from any acrylic polymer compound.
Thirdly, the data relates to specific polyurethane adhesives made from a specific composition containing a specific solvent. In particular, the data relates to the use of ethyl acetate as the solvent (instant specification, page 12, Table VI). However, the present claims are broadly drawn to any polyurethane adhesive made from any solvent.
Fourthly, the data relates to specific polyurethane adhesives made from specific isocyanate-reactive components. In particular, the data relates to isocyanate-reactive components made from co-reactant compositions containing: (1) 35 wt% PE-PC-1, 0.25 wt% MODAFLOW®, and 64.75 wt% ethyl acetate; (2) 35 wt% PE-PC-2, 0.25 wt% MODAFLOW®, and 64.75 wt% ethyl acetate; and (3) 35 wt% PE-PC-3, 0.25 wt% MODAFLOW®, and 64.75 wt% ethyl acetate (instant specification, page 15, Table VI). However, the present claims are broadly drawn to any isocyanate-reactive component comprising any crystalline polyester-polycarbonate diol in any amount, any acrylic polymer compound in any amount, and any solvent in any amount.
Fifthly, the data relates to specific polyurethane adhesives made from specific isocyanate components. In particular, the data relates to the use of MOR-FREE™ C33 (instant specification, page 16, Table VII) which is a specific (albeit undisclosed) aliphatic-based isocyanate (instant specification, page 11, lines 18-19). However, the present claims are broadly drawn to any isocyanate component made from any isocyanate.
Lastly, the data relates to specific polyurethane adhesives made from specific mixtures of specific isocyanate-reactive components and specific isocyanate components in specific amounts. In particular, the data relates to polyurethane adhesives made from: (1) 84.7 wt% of an isocyanate-reactive component made from 35 wt% PE-PC-1, 0.25 wt% MODAFLOW®, and 64.75 wt% ethyl acetate, reacted with 15.3 wt% of an isocyanate component being MOR-FREE™ C33; (2) 84.7 wt% of an isocyanate-reactive component made from 35 wt% PE-PC-2, 0.25 wt% MODAFLOW®, and 64.75 wt% ethyl acetate, reacted with 15.3 wt% of an isocyanate component being MOR-FREE™ C33; and (3) 84.7 wt% of an isocyanate-reactive component made from 35 wt% PE-PC-3, 0.25 wt% MODAFLOW®, and 64.75 wt% ethyl acetate, reacted with 15.3 wt% of an isocyanate component being MOR-FREE™ C33 (instant specification, pages 15-16, Tables VI-VII). However, the present claims are broadly drawn to any polyurethane adhesive made from any polyurethane adhesive composition made from any isocyanate component in any amount and any isocyanate-reactive component made from any crystalline polyester-polycarbonate diol in any amount, any acrylic polymer compound in any amount, and any solvent in any amount, where the isocyanate-reactive component is present in any amount.
As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed ranges.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the data found in Table VIII are not predictable based off Singh because Singh allegedly does not disclose the polyurethane adhesive of claim 1, and that Singh does not disclose the claimed oxygen transmission rate, this is not found persuasive. As set forth above, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Singh regarding the adhesive composition having an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), given that Singh discloses an otherwise identical adhesive composition made from otherwise identical components as that presently claimed, it is clear the adhesive composition of Singh would necessarily inherently have an oxygen transmission rate of less than 750 cc/(m2·day), absent evidence to the contrary. The basis for inherency is not based on mere possibility or probability, but based on the fact that the prior art references explicitly meet all the claim limitations. It is the examiner’s position that a sound basis has been set forth for believing that the product of the prior art is the same as that claimed. The Office realizes that the claimed properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teach(es) all of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed properties would inherently necessarily be capable of being achieved by the prior art. If it is Applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) persuasive evidence would need to be provided to support this position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure in that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed components. Given that it is the examiner’s position that a sound basis has been provided in the rejections of record for believing that the products of the Applicant and the prior art are the same, one would expect the claimed properties to necessarily be present (i.e., naturally flow from the prior art), and thus, the burden is properly shifted back to Applicant to show that they are not. Applicant has not provided any evidence (i.e., data) demonstrating the polyurethane adhesive of Singh would not have the claimed oxygen transmission rate. It is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Singh does not disclose the use of crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyols and allegedly teaches away from using a crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyol, this is not found persuasive. The examiner acknowledges Singh does not explicitly disclose a crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyol. However, Singh discloses the physical state of the polyester-polycarbonate polyol can be controlled by the ratio of ester and carbonate in the copolymer, and that such control is important since it affects the viscosity and the processing of the adhesive ([0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the physical state of the polyester-polycarbonate polyol of Singh, including having a crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyol in order to produce an adhesive with desired viscosity and having good processability ([0010]). Further, in response to Applicant’s argument that Singh teaches away from a crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyol, this is not found persuasive. Singh merely discloses pure polyester polyols and pure polycarbonate polyols are generally crystalline and solid at room temperature ([0010]) but this does not constitute a teaching away because the reference does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of crystalline polyester-polycarbonate polyols.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the motivation to combine the references come from the references themselves, and not from Applicant’s disclosure, and thus the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejections are proper.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Brinkman does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Singh and is silent regarding oxygen barrier properties, this is not found persuasive. As set forth above, Singh does not contain the deficiencies alleged by Applicant, and thus Brinkman is not required to address them. Further, Brinkman is not being used to meet oxygen barrier properties. Instead, Singh meets this limitation for the reasons set forth above. Brinkman is used as a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention. In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973); In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather, this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a hydroxy-functional acrylic polymer made from monomers including acrylic acid in order to provide a uniform coating of adhesive on a film (Brinkman, [0012]), and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Singh in view of Schreckenberg, Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Singh and Schreckenberg because Singh discloses adjusting the physical state of polyester-polycarbonate polyols is advantageous because it affects the viscosity of the final adhesive composition, whereas Schreckenberg teaches segmented polyester/polycarbonates exhibit crystalline domains with high melting points for use in structural or thermoplastic applications and not adhesive compositions. Applicant argues using crystalline polyester-polycarbonates in Singh would result in materials that are solid under processing conditions, which would defeat Singh’s objective of processability. Applicant further argues Brinkman does not cure the alleged deficiencies of either Singh nor Schreckenberg. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, these arguments are not found persuasive. Applicant has provided no evidence (i.e., data) demonstrating the combination of Schreckenberg with Singh would result in an inoperable invention. It is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the Singh and Schreckenberg references must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. Further, both Singh and Schreckenberg are drawn to polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyols, and thus they are in the same field of endeavor and their combination is proper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyol of Singh to be the crystalline polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyol taught by Schreckenberg in order to provide a composition having good transparency, highly elastic properties, outstanding elongation at break, and high heat distortion temperature (Schreckenberg, page 8, lines 54-56; page 12, lines 38-40). The crystalline polyester-polycarbonate copolymer polyol of Singh in view of Schreckenberg corresponds to the claimed crystalline polycarbonate diol compound.
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 Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-16:00 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights