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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims Status
Claims 1-2, 9, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23-26, 29 and 42-49 are all the claims pending. Claims 1, 9, 13, 16, 26 and 42 are amended. New claims 47-49 are added.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 5/26/2026.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to present claim 1 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection with regard to claim 1 is hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
First, Applicant's amendments and arguments with regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to present claims 2 and 26 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, it should be noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection with regard to claims 2 and 26 are maintained.
Secondly, Applicant's amendments and arguments with regard to rejection of present claim(s) 1, 4 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017030244 to Ishii (“Ishii”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant's amendments and arguments with regard to rejection of present claim(s) 1 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohta et al. (US 8,236,727; “Ohta”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections are hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wieloch et al. (US 2022/0325096).
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Maintained
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.
Claims 2 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the term “…when dosed at 1 wt% into PET as described in Examples 1 to 4 and bottles produced as described, the transmission, measured as described in Example 4, is reduced to less than 50% of the transmission of the PET alone” in claim 2 renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear what are the specific measurement conditions and requirements are required to define the transmission. For purpose of examination, the examiner considers any transmission taught by the prior are that otherwise reads on the claimed transmission as meeting the claimed limitations. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
Regarding claim 26, the term “…a light transmission (LT%) at 550nm as described in Test 3 … in claim 26 renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear what are the specific measurement conditions and requirements are required in Test 3 to define the transmission. For purpose of examination, the examiner considers any transmission taught by the prior are that otherwise reads on the claimed transmission as meeting the claimed limitations.
Further, the term "L*" in claim 26 renders the claim indefinite, because the claim does not define the method by which the L* value is measured. It is generally noted that L* value (lightness value) can vary depending on the measurement conditions, i.e., angle, instrument type, light source, among others, and such relevant measurement conditions should be recited in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, the examiner considers any L* value taught by the prior are that otherwise reads on the claimed L* value as meeting the claimed limitations. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 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, 2, 9, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23-24, 26, 29 and 42-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieloch et al. (US 2022/0325096; “Wieloch”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9 and claims 48-49, Wieloch teaches a container body which comprises a base and a side wall extending from the base (para [0053], [0054], Wieloch teaches various suitable articles including container having a side wall and internal volume, thus the container body having base and side walls extending from the base meeting the claimed limitations). Wieloch teaches suitable container includes those of a single layer (para [0030] [0053]). Wieloch teaches said container body includes polyester (para [0052], [0038], the blend includes polyester such as PET) and a polymer YY that is a cyclic block copolymer (CBC) (para [0038], and blend further includes suitable cyclic block copolymer such as VIVION 1325, which is the same cyclic block copolymer as that of the instant application, see instant specification para [0120], cyclic block copolymer refers to VIVION 1325, meeting the claimed material limitations of claim 9 and claims 48-49).
Wieloch further teaches its blend with the inclusion of a first light shielding pigment and a second light shielding pigment (para [0012], [0048], the inclusion of various pigments in combination, i.e., a first pigment and a second pigment, meeting the claimed limitations).
Wieloch is silent as to the Tg of its polyester and Tg of its polymer YY and the difference between the Tg. However, because the polyester and the polymer YY of Wieloch and the instantly claimed polyester and the polymer YY are identical or substantially identical in composition (as discussed above), it is expected that the polyester and the polymer YY of Wieloch would possess the same or similar Tg, respectively, as instantly claimed, and that the difference between the Tg of the polyester and that of said polymer YY would be the same or similar as instantly claimed, i.e., the difference between the Tg of the polyester and that of said polymer YY is at least 30°C and less than 60°C as in instant claim 1. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112.
In addition, Wieloch teaches the suitable cyclic block copolymer includes suitable VIVION, such as VIVION 1325 material having a Vicat Softening Temperature (VST) measured by ASTM D1525 of 123° C (para [0038]), the Vicat Softening Temperature (VST) is less than 190°C, of which the VST taught by Wieloch overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 110°C of claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Wieloch teaches as in one of its embodiments that the addition of its polymer YY that is a cyclic block copolymer (para [0038], and blend further includes suitable cyclic block copolymer such as VIVION 1325) is less than 20% of the transmission of the PET alone (para [0072]), and is considered as meeting the claimed limitations. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 made of record in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 13, Wieloch teaches a container, wherein said container body includes PET (para [0052], [0038], the blend includes polyester such as PET) and the polymer YY that is a cyclic block copolymer (CBC) (para [0038], and blend further includes suitable cyclic block copolymer such as VIVION 1325, which is the same cyclic block copolymer as that of the instant application, see instant specification para [0120], cyclic block copolymer refers to VIVION 1325); and
- a ratio (B) defined as the weight of PET divided by the weight of polymer YY in a layer of the container body is in the range of 6 to 42 (i.e., which is the calculated ratio B, because Wieloch teaches mixing about 85% wt of PET with about 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer, so the ratio is 85/15 to 85/2, para [0030] [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 8 to 32. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Wieloch teaches the sum of the wt% of thermoplastic polymers in said container body is at least 85% wt (para [0030]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 88 wt% and is less than 99wt%. Wieloch teaches said container body includes a first light shielding pigment which is zinc sulphide (para [0011]) in amount of 4% wt or less (para [0011]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of less than 8 wt% of said first light shielding pigment; and includes at least 1 wt% of said first light shielding pigment. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Wieloch does not state that its container body must include pigment of titanium dioxide and is considered meeting the claimed limitations of includes less than 2 wt% of titanium dioxide. Wieloch also teaches the inclusion of suitable pigments blend including zinc sulphide, and may include additional pigments as desired including aluminum flake (para [0050]), considered meeting the claimed limitation of being a particulate metal of claim 19. Wieloch also teaches as in one of its embodiments that the amount of aluminum is about 0.035 % (col. 14, Table 14, examples), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of less than 0.050 wt% of instant claim 21. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Wieloch teaches the sum of the wt% of thermoplastic polymers in said container body is at least 85% wt (para [0030]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 88.0 to 93.0 wt% of PET,
- 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer (para [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 3.0 to 7.0wt% of polymer YY. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Wieloch also teaches the inclusion of suitable pigments blend including zinc sulphide, and may include additional pigments as desired including aluminum (para [0050]). Wieloch also teaches as in one of its embodiments that the amount of aluminum is about 0.035 % (col. 14, Table 14, examples), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.01 to 0.2wt% of particulate aluminum of instant claim 23, which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.01 to 0.1 wt% of particulate aluminum of instant claim 24. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 26, Wieloch teaches as in one of its embodiments the container body having LT% of about 2.16 (para [0094], Table 5, examples). Wieloch teaches as in one of its embodiments the container body has an L* of at least 90 (para [0089], Table 3, examples), considered as meeting the claimed limitations. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 26 made of record in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 29, Wieloch teaches a container (para [0006]) comprising the container body, wherein a closure is secured to the container body (para [0053], [0054], Wieloch teaches various suitable articles including container having a side wall and internal volume), and said container includes a beverage which includes at least 0.1wt% fat and/or is a milk (para [0006], container for milk, etc.).
Regarding claims 42-43, Wieloch teaches a container, wherein said container body includes PET (para [0052], [0038], the blend includes polyester such as PET) and the polymer YY that is a cyclic block copolymer (CBC) (para [0038], and blend further includes suitable cyclic block copolymer such as VIVION 1325, which is the same cyclic block copolymer as that of the instant application, see instant specification para [0120], cyclic block copolymer refers to VIVION 1325).
- a ratio (B) defined as the weight of PET divided by the weight of polymer YY in a layer of the container body is in the range of 6 to 42 (i.e., which is the calculated ratio B, because Wieloch teaches mixing about 85% wt of PET with about 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer, so the ratio is 85/15 to 85/2, para [0030] [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 15 to 25. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Wieloch teaches the sum of the wt% of thermoplastic polymers in said container body is at least 85% wt (para [0030]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 88.0 to 94.0 wt% of PET,
- 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer (para [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 3.0 to 6.0wt% of polymer YY.
Wieloch teaches said container body includes a first light shielding pigment which is zinc sulphide (para [0011]) in amount of 4% wt or less (para [0011]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1 to 7% of other ingredient. Wieloch also teaches the inclusion of suitable pigments blend including zinc sulphide, and may include additional pigments as desired including aluminum (para [0050]). Wieloch also teaches as in one of its embodiments that the amount of aluminum is about 0.035 % (col. 14, Table 14, examples), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.01 to 0.1 wt% of particulate aluminum of claim 43. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Wieloch teaches a container (para [0006]) comprising the container body, wherein a closure is secured to the container body (para [0053], [0054], Wieloch teaches various suitable articles including container having a side wall and internal volume), and said container includes a beverage which includes at least 0.1wt% fat and/or is a milk (para [0006], container for milk, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 44 and claim 45, Wieloch teaches a container body which comprises a base and a side wall extending from the base (para [0053], [0054], Wieloch teaches various suitable articles including container having a side wall and internal volume, thus the container body having base and side walls extending from the base meeting the claimed limitations). Wieloch teaches suitable container includes those of a single layer (para [0030] [0053]). Wieloch teaches said container body includes polyester (para [0052], [0038], the blend includes polyester such as PET) and a polymer YY that is a cyclic block copolymer (CBC) (para [0038], and blend further includes suitable cyclic block copolymer such as VIVION 1325, which is the same cyclic block copolymer as that of the instant application, see instant specification para [0120], cyclic block copolymer refers to VIVION 1325, meeting the claimed material limitations of claim 45).
- a ratio (B) defined as the weight of PET divided by the weight of polymer YY in a layer of the container body is in the range of 6 to 42 (i.e., which is the calculated ratio B, because Wieloch teaches mixing about 85% wt of PET with about 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer, so the ratio is 85/15 to 85/2, para [0030] [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 15 to 25. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Wieloch teaches the sum of the wt% of thermoplastic polymers in said container body is at least 85% wt (para [0030]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 88.0 to 94.0 wt% of PET,
- 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer (para [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 3.0 to 6.0wt% of polymer YY.
Wieloch teaches said container body includes a first light shielding pigment which is zinc sulphide (para [0011]) in amount of 4% wt or less (para [0011]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1 to 7% of other ingredient. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 46, Wieloch teaches the sum of the wt% of thermoplastic polymers in said container body is at least 85% wt (para [0030]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 88.0 to 93.0 wt% of PET,
- 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer (para [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 4.0 to 7.0wt% of polymer YY.
Wieloch teaches said container body includes a first light shielding pigment which is zinc sulphide (para [0011]) in amount of 4% wt or less (para [0011]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 2 to 5%. Wieloch also teaches the inclusion of suitable pigments blend including zinc sulphide, and may include additional pigments as desired including aluminum (para [0050]). Wieloch also teaches as in one of its embodiments that the amount of aluminum is about 0.035 % (col. 14, Table 14, examples), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.01 to 0.1 wt% of particulate aluminum. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Wieloch teaches a container (para [0006]) comprising the container body, wherein a closure is secured to the container body (para [0053], [0054], Wieloch teaches various suitable articles including container having a side wall and internal volume), and said container includes a beverage which includes at least 0.1wt% fat and/or is a milk (para [0006], container for milk, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 47, Wieloch teaches a container body which comprises a base and a side wall extending from the base (para [0053], [0054], Wieloch teaches various suitable articles including container having a side wall and internal volume, thus the container body having base and side walls extending from the base meeting the claimed limitations). Wieloch teaches suitable container includes those of a single layer (para [0030] [0053]). Wieloch teaches said container body includes polyester (para [0052], [0038], the blend includes polyester such as PET) and a polymer YY that is a cyclic block copolymer (CBC) (para [0038], and blend further includes suitable cyclic block copolymer such as VIVION 1325, which is the same cyclic block copolymer as that of the instant application, see instant specification para [0120], cyclic block copolymer refers to VIVION 1325).
Wieloch further teaches its blend with the inclusion of a first light shielding pigment and a second light shielding pigment (para [0012], [0048], the inclusion of various pigments in combination, i.e., a first pigment and a second pigment, meeting the claimed limitations).
Wieloch is silent as to the Tg of its polyester and Tg of its polymer YY and the difference between the Tg. However, because the polyester and the polymer YY of Wieloch and the instantly claimed polyester and the polymer YY are identical or substantially identical in composition (as discussed above), it is expected that the polyester and the polymer YY of Wieloch would possess the same or similar Tg, respectively, as instantly claimed, and that the difference between the Tg of the polyester and that of said polymer YY would be the same or similar as instantly claimed, i.e., the difference between the Tg of the polyester and that of said polymer YY is at least 30°C and less than 60°C as in instant claim 47. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112.
In addition, Wieloch teaches the suitable cyclic block copolymer includes suitable VIVION, such as VIVION 1325 material having a Vicat Softening Temperature (VST) measured by ASTM D1525 of 123° C (para [0038]), the Vicat Softening Temperature (VST) is less than 190°C, of which the VST taught by Wieloch overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 110°C of claim 47. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
- a ratio (B) defined as the weight of PET divided by the weight of polymer YY in a layer of the container body is in the range of 6 to 42 (i.e., which is the calculated ratio B, because Wieloch teaches mixing about 85% wt of PET with about 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer, so the ratio is 85/15 to 85/2, para [0030] [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 15 to 25. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Wieloch teaches the sum of the wt% of thermoplastic polymers in said container body is at least 85% wt (para [0030]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 88.0 to 94.0 wt% of PET,
- 2 to 15% of polymer YY/cyclic olefin copolymer (para [0041]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 3.0 to 6.0wt% of polymer YY.
Wieloch teaches said container body includes a first light shielding pigment which is zinc sulphide (para [0011]) in amount of 4% wt or less (para [0011]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1 to 7% of other ingredient. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
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 YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights