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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-23, species i (crosslinkable silane-functional monomer) and species ii (crosslinkable silane-functional oligomer) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/24/2025.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/3/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 2, 4, 10 and 25 has/have been cancelled. Claim 26 is new. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 11-24 and 26 is/are pending with claim(s) 16-23 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 11-15, 24 and 26 is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 8/3/2026, with respect to 112(a) rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's argument filed on 8/3/2026, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant teaches away from the new limitation of “wherein the crosslinkable silane-functional polymer comprises monomer residues in an amount less than 5% by weight” by stating that the relative conversion rate of its monomers is reduced when significant amounts of styrenic or methacrylate monomers are used as comonomers with vinyl alkoxy silane and acrylate monomers (see Paragraph [0076]). Likewise, Paquet states that methacrylate monomers should be absent for better conversion of vinyl silane to polymer (see Paragraph [0020]). However, the present claims recite polymerization of monomers comprising, inter alia, from 50% to 80% by weight of at least one (meth)acrylate monomer. Such a recitation is against the teachings of Paquet. Examples 5-6 of Paquet result in a conversion of only 90%, which is outside the scope of the present claims. Thus, Paquet does not teach or suggest the claimed monomer residues as an inherent property.
In response, most of Paquet’s examples have conversion higher than 97%; and good conversion is obtained throughout this series [0076 Examples 3-11]. When conversion is higher than 95%, the monomer residues is in an amount less than 5% by weight. The only examples with lower than 95% conversion is Ex. 5 and Ex. 6 which have high styrene concentration. However, styrenic monomer can be zero in the claimed composition. When styrenic monomer is 5% (Paquet Ex. 4) or lower, the conversion is 97% or higher with 3% or less monomer residues, meeting the claimed “wherein the crosslinkable silane-functional polymer comprises monomer residues in an amount less than 5% by weight”.
Applicant argued that it was surprisingly found that an optimized feeding strategy, in which the composition of the monomer feed is changed in multiple steps during the reaction, could be utilized to provide a homogeneous incorporation of vinyl alkoxy silane, and simultaneously, lead to significantly reduced monomer residues after polymerization (see Paragraph [0038] of the published application). The synthesis approach for the claimed polymer decreased the residues of monomers (<5%) and the obtained acrylosilane polymer has a solid content of no less than 70% by weight and Tg of less than 150 C (see Paragraph [0050] of the published application). Even if the Office has established a prima facie case of obviousness, which Applicant does not concede, the surprising results of the application are sufficient to rebut such a prima facie case of obviousness.
In response, “optimized feeding strategy” is a process limitation, not a product limitation. The prior art does not need to teach this process in order to meet the product limitation. In addition, whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 716.02(d). In the instant case, the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims. For instance, Claim 1 recites (a) from 24% to 90% by weight of crosslinkable silane-functional monomer and/or oligomer and/or polymer prepared by polymerization of monomers comprising: i) from 20% to 50% by weight of vinyl alkoxy silane represented by Formula I H2C=CH-(CH2)n-Si-(R1)m(R2)3-m wherein R1 is an aryl or alkyl group having C1-CG, R2 is an alkoxyl group having C1-CG, m is 0 or 1 and n is an integer from 0 to 3; ii) from 50% to 80% by weight of at least one (meth)acrylate monomer; and iii) from 0% to 30% by weight of styrenic monomer, all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the silane-functional polymer. This covers wide variety of monomer and/or oligomer and/or polymer depending on the values of R1, R2, n and m; the (meth)acrylate monomer; and the styrenic monomer. However, the examples only employ one crosslinkable silane-functional monomer vinyltrimethoxysilane; two or three (meth)acrylate monomers (methyl methacrylate, n-butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate); and one styrenic monomer (styrene). It is not known if other crosslinkable silane-functional monomers, oligomers, or polymers; other (meth)acrylate monomers; and other styrenic monomers would give the same result. Also, it is not clear if the examples cover both inside and outside the claimed range of 20% to 50% by weight of vinyl alkoxy silane, 50% to 80% by weight of at least one (meth)acrylate monomer, and 0% to 30% by weight of styrenic monomer; and 24-90 wt% of the crosslinkable silane-functional monomer and/or oligomer and/or polymer. Claim 1 recites (b) 9-75 wt% of unsaturated polyester, which covers virtually unlimited variety of unsaturated polyesters. However, the examples only employ a few polyesters based on itaconic acid and maleic anhydride. It is not clear if other unsaturated polyesters would give the same result. Also, it is not clear if the examples cover both inside and outside the claimed range of 9-75 wt% of the unsaturated polyesters. Similar issues exist in the claimed (c) and (d) wherein the claimed scopes exceed the examples.
Since the examples are not reasonably commensurate with the full scope of claimed materials, and the Applicant has not provided any additional information that would allow one skilled in the art to extend the results associated with the data to the full scope of the claim, the examples cannot be relied upon to establish non-obviousness of the claimed invention.
Applicant argued that a showing of unexpected results does not require that every possible embodiment of the claims be demonstrated. A person of ordinary skill in the art would view a reasonable correlation between the present examples and claims. Significantly, the claimed crosslinkable silane-functional polymer is recited to be prepared by a particular polymerization of monomers, including a vinyl alkoxy silane represented by Formula I, where the crosslinkable silane-functional polymer comprises monomer residues in an amount less than 5% by weight. Such a polymerization, and the corresponding polymer having reduced monomer residue content, is consistent with the surprising results described in the present application. Indeed, support for the claimed amounts of residues is found at least in Tables 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of the published application. It would therefore be unduly limiting, and is unnecessary, to require that the claims recite the particular amounts and species of the exemplified components. Accordingly, claim 1 is commensurate in scope with the surprising results described in the present application.
In response, Applicant has not provided any additional information that would allow one skilled in the art to extend the results associated with the data to the full scope of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to view a reasonable correlation between the present examples and claims.
Applicant argued that claim 1 recites particular steps for the formation of the crosslinkable silane-functional polymer. These steps are consistent with the surprising results discovered in the present application. Moreover, these steps result in a structural change of reduced residual monomer content of less than 5% by weight, as is now claimed. Consequently, even though claim 1 is a product-by-process claim, it results in a surprising structural change.
In response, the issue of “surprising results” is addressed above. The “structural change of reduced residual monomer content of less than 5% by weight” is also met by the prior art as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13-14, 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus et al (WO 03106578 A1) in view of Piestert et al (US 20170152337 A1) and Paquet et al (US 20030170468 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11 and 13, Klaus teaches a coating composition curable by means of high energy radiation and by means of moisture, comprising a binder system with free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds and with hydrolysable alkoxysilane groups [abstract]. The coating compositions cure by means of two different cross-linking mechanisms: by means of free-radical polymerization of olefinic double bonds and by means of the hydrolysis and subsequent condensation of alkoxysilane groups to form siloxane bridges [P4 para.3]. Therefore, it is a dual-reactive coating composition.
The free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds and the hydrolysable alkoxysilane groups may be present in the same binder and/or in separate binders [P4 para.2].
Suitable compounds with alkoxysilane groups may comprise monoalkoxysilane, dialkoxysilane and/or trialkoxysilane groups [P5 last para.], obtained by copolymerizing alkoxysilane-functional (meth)acrylate monomers or by copolymerizing vinylalkoxysilanes [P6 para.2]. These are polymers with alkoxysilane groups.
Suitable binders with free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds are prepolymers, such as, polymers and oligomers [P4 para. 4]; Examples of prepolymers include polyester (meth)acrylates and unsaturated polyesters [P4 last para.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a polymer with alkoxysilane groups and a prepolymer with free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds in separate binders, as Klaus expressively disclosed as being suitable for this application.
The polymers with alkoxysilane groups read on the claimed (a) crosslinkable silane-functional polymer, as evidenced by the applicant [P4 line 3-5 and Line 19-24, spec.].
The polyester (meth)acrylates prepolymers and unsaturated polyesters with free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds read on the claimed (b) unsaturated polyester, as evidenced by the applicant [P9 line 28-30, spec.].
Klaus does not teach that the unsaturated polyesters are prepared from a condensation of at least one monounsaturated linear aliphatic dicarboxylic acid or its anhydride and at least one saturated aliphatic diol.
In the same field of endeavor, Piestert teaches an unsaturated polyester use for coating application [0001]. The double bonds in the unsaturated polyester serve for crosslinking (curing) of the coating [0034], which is the same reactive chemistry as Klaus’ unsaturated polyester. The unsaturated polyester is polycondensation products of unsaturated dicarboxylic acids, such as maleic and/or fumaric acid, with diols such as neopentyl glycol [0034, 0041, 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select an unsaturated polyester which polycondensation products of unsaturated dicarboxylic acids, such as maleic and/or fumaric acid, with diols such as neopentyl glycol, in Klaus’ composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Klaus teaches a clear coat composition in Example 4 containing 70 wt% of alkoxysilane-functional urethane acrylate, 1.2 wt% of photoinitiator, and 2.0 wt% of p-toluenesulfonic acid based catalyst [P14 “Clear coat 1”]. The photoinitiator is a radical polymerization initiator [P7 para.5]; and the p-toluenesulfonic acid based catalyst is a catalyst for silane condensation, as evidenced by the applicant [P11L24 spec.].
In this example, the free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds and the hydrolysable alkoxysilane groups are present in the same binder. However, as stated above, the free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds and the hydrolysable alkoxysilane groups can be present in separate binders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make a coating composition according to Klaus, substituting the 70 wt% of alkoxysilane-functional urethane acrylate with 35 wt% of a polymer with alkoxysilane groups and 35 wt% of a polyurethane acrylate, based on Klaus’ suggestion of separate binders.
Klaus teaches that polyurethane acrylate and unsaturated polyesters are equivalents as prepolymers with free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds [P4 last para.].
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Klaus recognized polyurethane acrylate and unsaturated polyesters are equivalent for the same purpose as prepolymers with free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute the 35 wt% of a polyurethane acrylate with 35 wt% of a unsaturated polyesters are in Klaus’ composition.
The 35 wt% of a polymer with alkoxysilane groups meets the claimed a) from 24% to 90% by weight of crosslinkable silane-functional monomer and/or oligomer and/or polymer; the 35 wt% of a unsaturated polyesters meets the claimed b) from 9% to 75% by weight of unsaturated polyester; the 1.2 wt% of initiator meets the claimed c) from 0.5% to 10% by weight of one initiator; and the 2.0 wt% of catalyst meets the claimed d) from 0.5% to 10% by weight of one catalyst.
The recited “said crosslinkable silane-functional polymer is prepared by…” is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(1). The product obtained through this process is a polymer containing vinyl unit, (meth)acrylate unit, and alkoxysilane-functional groups.
Klaus teaches that binders bearing alkoxysilane groups may be produced by copolymerizing alkoxysilane-functional (meth)acrylate monomers or by copolymerizing vinylalkoxysilanes [P6 para.2].
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose" In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), MPEP 2144.06.I). Since Klaus recognized alkoxysilane-functional (meth)acrylate monomers and vinylalkoxysilanes as equivalents for the same purpose of forming binders bearing alkoxysilane groups, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be able to combine these two monomers, forming a binder containing vinyl unit, (meth)acrylate unit, and alkoxysilane-functional groups. Thes component units are the same as in the claimed crosslinkable silane-functional polymer.
Klaus does not teach the percentage of these monomers or the percentage of the component units.
In the same field of endeavor, Paquet teaches acrylosilane polymers obtained by copolymerizing vinyl alkoxysilanes with acrylate monomers; and the polymers are used in automotive clear coat layers [Abstract] similar to Klaus. The copolymers may include 10-50 wt% of an ethylenically unsaturated vinyl alkoxysilane such as vinyl trimethoxysilane (VTMS), 50-90 wt% of an acrylate monomer such as methyl acrylate, and 0-40 wt% of a styrenic monomer such as styrene [0016]-[0020]. The acrylosilane polymer has a weight average molecular weight of about 1,000 to 30,000 [0023], and a hydroxyl value of from about 50 to 130 mg KOH/gram [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Paquet’s acrylosilane polymer as the binder polymer bearing alkoxysilane groups in Klaus’ composition, as it contains the same component units and is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
The 10-50 wt% of an ethylenically unsaturated vinyl alkoxysilane such as vinyl trimethoxysilane (VTMS) overlaps the claimed 20-50 wt% of vinyl alkoxy silane represented by Formula I in claim 1 and vinyltrimethoxysilane in claim 5. The 50-90 wt% of an acrylate monomer such as n-butyl acrylate overlaps the claimed 50-80 wt% of (meth)acrylate monomer in claim 1 and n-butyl acrylate in claim 5. The 0-40 wt% of a styrenic monomer such as styrene overlaps the claimed 0-30 wt% of styrenic monomer in claim 1 and styrene in claim 5. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05.I).
The weight average molecular weight of about 1,000 to 30,000 meets the claimed weight average molecular weight of below 30,000 in claim 6.
The hydroxyl value of from about 50 to 130 meets the claimed hydroxyl value of 0-150 mg KOH/g in claim 7.
Most of Paquet’s examples have conversion higher than 97%; and “[g]ood conversion is… obtained throughout this series” [0076 Examples 3-11]. A conversion higher than 95% means the monomer residues is in an amount less than 5% by weight. When styrenic monomer is 5% (Paquet Ex. 4) or lower, the conversion is 97% or higher with 3% or less monomer residues, meeting the claimed “wherein the crosslinkable silane-functional polymer comprises monomer residues in an amount less than 5% by weight”.
Regarding claim 14, the recited “said crosslinkable silane-functional polymer is prepared by a method comprising two steps…” is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(1). The product obtained through this process is a polymer containing vinyl unit, (meth)acrylate unit, and alkoxysilane-functional groups. The prior art teaches the same crosslinkable silane-functional polymer as stated above. Therefore, the recited process does not gain patentable weight.
Regarding claim 24, Klaus teaches that the composition comprises thermolabile initiator [P9, 1st para.] which reads on the claimed thermal initiator.
Paquet teaches thermal initiator t-butyl peroxy 2-ethylhexanoate in an amount of 185 parts in a composition of total 8500 parts [0070], which is 2.2 wt% as calculated by the examiner, falling within the claimed range of 0.5-10 wt%.
Regarding claim 26, Paquet teaches the solids content of 70% or higher for all the acrylosilane polymers (Ex. 3-11 [0076]).
The recited Tg is a property of the product. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2112.01. Since the prior art teaches the same product as the current invention, the recited property is expected to be present.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus in view of Piestert and Paquet as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of BASF (“Laromer PE 55 F”, 2015).
Klaus in view of Piestert and Paquet teaches the composition in claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-9, Klaus teaches polyester (meth)acrylates prepolymers with free-radically polymerizable olefinic double bonds, which read on the claimed (b) unsaturated polyester as stated above.
Klaus does not teach the claimed molecular weight or hydroxyl value.
In the same field of endeavor, BASF teaches a polyester acrylic Laromer® PE 55 F for the formulation of radiation-curable coatings [“Product Description”]. As evidenced by the applicant, Laromer® PE 55 F meets the claimed molecular weight, hydroxyl value, and acid value [P9 line 28-34, spec.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Laromer® PE 55 F as the polyester (meth)acrylates prepolymer in Klaus’ composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
In addition, Klaus teaches that the number average molar mass Mn of the prepolymers may be from 500 to 10000 g/mol [P5 para.1], falling within the claimed range of 200-20000. BASF teaches that the acid value of Laromer® PE 55 F is ≤ 5 mg KOH/g [“Properties”], falling within the claimed range of 0-150 mg KOH/g.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus in view of Piestert and Paquet as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Li et al (CN 103627312 A, machine translation is referenced herein).
Klaus in view of Piestert and Paquet teaches the composition in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Klaus teaches a clear coat composition in Example 4 containing an initiator as stated above. Klaus teaches that the photoinitiator includes benzoin and derivatives, benzophenone and derivatives [P7 last para.].
Klaus does not teach the claimed dibenzoyl peroxide (BPO), ethyl-2-oxocyclopentanecarboxylate (EOC) and benzo pinacol (BP).
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches a UV-curable coating composition comprising a photoinitiator selected from benzoin dimethyl ether, 4-phenyl-benzophenone, and dibenzoyl peroxide [claim 7].
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Li recognized benzoin dimethyl ether, 4-phenyl-benzophenone, and dibenzoyl peroxide are equivalent for the same purpose as a photoinitiator, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute benzoin derivative or benzophenone derivative with dibenzoyl peroxide in Klaus’ composition.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus in view of Piestert and Paquet as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hasegawa (US 20100105798 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Klaus in view of Piestert and Paquet teaches the composition in claim 1. Klaus further teaches that the coating composition may contain further conventional coating additives such as rheological agents and thickeners [P9 para. 1]. Rheological agents and thickeners are art recognized as sagging control agent.
Klaus does not teach the claimed silane-functional sagging control agent.
In the same field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches a curable coating composition comprising thixotropic agent (anti-sagging agent) 1,3,5-tris(trialkoxysilylalkyl)isocyanurate [0429-0430].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select 1,3,5-tris(trialkoxysilylalkyl)isocyanurate as the rheological agent in Klaus’ composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
1,3,5-Tris(trialkoxysilylalkyl)isocyanurate reads on the claimed silane-functional sagging control agent.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights