DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 06/10/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9-11 are presently pending and under examination; claims 4-5 and 8 are canceled; claims 1 and 9 are amended; claims 10-11 are new.
A new objection to claim 10 is present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 over KUBO is maintained; the rejection of claim 8 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality:
In claim 10, “total amount” should read “a total amount” (see claim 10 at line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to newly added claim 10, it is noted that the new claim recites “an organic binder”. As such, while the specification discloses a carboxylic acid and/or an amine compound as binders (see paragraph [0040] of the present specification), which are organic, the Examiner has been unable to locate any disclosure that would support the broad genus limitation of “an organic binder”. The term “organic binder” is not used in the description, and the description only provides support for a carboxylic acid and/or amine binder. As discussed in MPEP § 2163(II)(3)(a)(ii), for the written description requirement for a claimed genus to be satisfied, sufficient description of a representative number of species is required, meaning that the species described are representative of the entire genus.
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 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation “wherein an amount of the at least one resin is 10 to 70% by mass relative to total amount of the at least one pigment and an organic binder” (see claim 10 at lines 1-2); the meaning of “relative to a total amount of… an organic binder” is not clear, as no organic binder is recited as part of the claimed composite pigment. The scope of the claim is indefinite as it is not clear from the claim language whether or not the composite pigment actually contains an organic binder.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 10 as though it recites wherein the composite pigment further comprises an organic binder, and wherein an amount of the at least one resin is 10 to 70% by mass relative to a total amount of the at least one pigment and the organic binder. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0252153-A1) (hereinafter, “KUBO”).
Regarding claim 1, KUBO teaches a composite pigment containing a substrate particle and a pigment layer arranged on a surface of the substrate particle (see KUBO at Abstract, teaching a colored metallic pigment comprising a metallic pigment substrate with a coloring pigment layer),
wherein the pigment layer contains at least one pigment, at least one resin, and at least one selected from the group consisting of a silicon oxide, a polysiloxane, and composites thereof (see KUBO at paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and [0075]-[0076], teaching the colored pigment layer comprising a protective layer which may be composed of both resin and oxide, particularly silicon oxide and/or polysiloxane condensate),
and wherein the pigment layer is composed of a plurality of particles in which the at least one pigment is coated with the at least one resin (see KUBO at paragraphs [0114]-[0116], [0120] and [0078]-[0080], teaching that the composite pigment is made by first degreasing the aluminum pigment substrate, then adhering the coloring pigment particles to the substrate using carboxylic acid and amine binders, and then coating the resin layer on top; see also Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0038]-[0043], [0050]-[0051] and [0059]-[0063], disclosing that the composite pigment according to claim 1 is also made by first degreasing the aluminum pigment substrate, then adhering the coloring pigment to the substrate using carboxylic acid and amine binders, then coating the resin layer on top).
KUBO does not explicitly state that the at least one selected from the group consisting of the silicon oxide, the polysiloxane, and the composites thereof must be adhered to surfaces of the plurality of particles on top of the resin coating; however, KUBO teaches that when both the resin and the hydroxide/oxide (silicon oxide/polysiloxane) are included, the order of forming these two layers is not particularly limited (see KUBO at paragraphs [0065]). Therefore, it is clear from the disclosure of KUBO to form the oxide layer on top of the resin layer, as there are only two options for the order of the layers (resin adhered to oxide surface or oxide adhered to resin surface), and KUBO teaches that either order may be used.
KUBO does not explicitly state mention that the pigment layer is porous, has a specific surface area of 70 to 100 m2/g, and includes voids between the plurality of particles; however, KUBO teaches a composite pigment that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed pigment, and is formed by an identical or substantially identical process.
KUBO teaches a composite pigment as claimed, comprising:
an aluminum metallic pigment substrate particle (see KUBO at paragraph [0031]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0018]),
0.1 to 30 parts by mass of a carboxylic acid having two or more carboxyl groups and 0.1 to 30 parts by mass of an amine having two or more amino groups (see KUBO at paragraphs [0052]-[0057] and [0061]-[0062]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0040], disclosing using 50 parts by mass or less of a binder comprising a carboxylic acid having two or more carboxyl groups and an amine compound having two or more amino groups in order to render the pigment layer porous),
and a pigment layer comprising 1 to 200 parts by mass of a coloring pigment (see KUBO at paragraph [0047]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0041], disclosing 10 to 60% by mass of pigment), 0.5 to 100 parts by mass of a resin (see KUBO at paragraphs [0066]-[0067]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0030], disclosing 5 to 100% by mass of resin) and 0.5 to 100 parts by mass of an oxide, particularly silicon oxide and/or polysiloxane (see KUBO at paragraphs [0076]-[0077]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0036] and [0051], disclosing 2 to 45% by mass of the oxide, silicon oxide/polysiloxane). KUBO teaches that the pigment is formed by a process which includes:
adding aluminum pigment CS460, with a particle size of 16 μm, and DIACID 1550 to a flask of mineral spirit and heating/stirring the mixture, then cooling to room temperature and subjecting to a degreasing step by filtration to obtain the metallic pigment substrate (see KUBO at paragraph [0144]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0059], disclosing a process including adding aluminum flake pigment CS460, with a particle size of 16 μm, and DIACID 1550 to a flask of mineral spirit and heating/stirring the mixture, then cooling to room temperature and filtering for degreasing to obtain the substrate particles);
adding a mineral spirit solvent, a pigment, e.g., blue pigment LONAL BLUE 7185-PM, the metallic pigment substrate particles, DIACID 1550 and an amine, e.g., ADK STAB LA-67 alicyclic polyamine, to a kneader and stirring at a temperature of 0 to 150 °C for up to 1 hour to adhere the coloring pigment to the surface of the metallic pigment substrate particles (see KUBO at paragraphs [0115], [0119] and [0120]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0060], disclosing a process including adding mineral spirit, the aluminum pigment substrate particles, blue pigment LIONOL BLUE 7185-PM, DIACID 1550 and hindered amine ADEKASTAB LA-67 to a kneader and stirring at 80 °C for 1 hour to obtain pigment-coated particles);
adding the slurry containing the colored metallic pigment to a flask containing mineral spirit and adding acrylic acid, trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate and azobisisobutyronitrile (and/or divinylbenzene), and heating/stirring the resulting mixture at 50 to 150 °C for 30 minutes to 30 hours, then cooling to room temperature and filtering to obtain the colored metallic pigment having a layer of resin on the surface, wherein the polymerization reaction is preferably conducted under an atmosphere of inert gas such as nitrogen (see KUBO at paragraphs [0070]-[0071] and [0116]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0061], disclosing a process including adding the slurry containing the pigment-coated particles to a flask of mineral spirit and adding acrylic acid, trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, divinylbenzene and azobisisobutyronitrile, and heating/stirring the resulting mixture at 100 °C for 6 hours while nitrogen is blown in, then cooling to room temperature and filtering to obtain the resin-coated particles; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0045], disclosing polymerization at 50 to 150 °C for 30 minutes to 30 hours);
wherein the protective layer comprising the resin may also include an oxide, e.g., a silicon oxide and/or polysiloxane, which is included by stirring a dispersion of the colored metallic pigment and solvent (e.g., water and/or isopropyl alcohol) with a neutralizing agent, such as monoethanolamine, and a solution containing a silicon compound, e.g., a silica precursor such as tetraethoxysilane (TEOS), in a slurry or paste state in order to form the layer comprising silicon oxide on the surface of the colored metallic pigment, wherein the protective layer is formed by, e.g., heating/stirring the mixture at 50 to 150 °C for 30 minutes to 30 hours, then cooling to room temperature and filtering (see KUBO at paragraphs [0074], [0076], [0078]-[0082] and [0116]; see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0063], disclosing a process including adding a slurry of the resin-coated particles dispersed in isopropyl alcohol, adding water and monoethanolamine, then adding silica (TEOS) and stirring at 70 °C for 6 hours and cooling to room temperature and filtering to obtain a composite pigment coated with the pigment, resin and silica on the surface), and
wherein the weight ratio of the amount of pigment to the total amount composite pigment is approximately 2% to 44% (calculated from the amounts of the composite pigment components disclosed in paragraphs [0047], [0057], [0062], [0067], and [0077]; KUBO teaches, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the metallic pigment substrate, 5 to 100 parts of the coloring pigment, 0.5 to 20 parts of the amine component, 0.5 to 20 parts of the carboxylic acid component, 5 to 50 parts of the resin, and 5 to 30 parts of the oxide/hydroxide (i.e., silicon oxide/polysiloxane)), and Applicant’s specification clearly states that ratios of the amount of pigment to the total amount of composite pigment within a range of 10 to 60% by mass will result in the composite pigment as claimed wherein the pigment layer has the voids as claimed and the resin penetrates into the voids (see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, as the composite pigment of KUBO is substantially identical to the claimed invention and is formed by a substantially identical process, it would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the claimed invention, including porosity, specific surface area, and voids between the particles of the pigment layer. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "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). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 1, wherein the at least one resin is a radically polymerized resin of at least one selected from a monomer and an oligomer, and the at least one selected from the monomer and the oligomer has two or more polymerizable double bonds (see KUBO at paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 1, wherein the substrate particle comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy (see KUBO at paragraphs [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 1, and further teaches a thermoplastic resin composition comprising the composite pigment according to claim 1 (see KUBO at paragraphs [0099] and [0106]-[0107], teaching a synthetic resin master batch composition containing the colored metallic pigment blended in a matrix of a thermoplastic resin, e.g., polyethylene).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 6 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 6, and further teaches a molded body comprising the thermoplastic resin composition according to claim 6 (see KUBO at paragraphs [0099] and [0106]-[0107], teaching a resin molded article formed from the synthetic resin master batch composition).
Regarding claims 9, as applied to claim 1 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 1, wherein the at least one resin penetrates into the voids. KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 1 wherein the weight ratio of the amount of pigment to the total amount composite pigment is approximately 2% to 44% (calculated from the amounts of the composite pigment components disclosed in paragraphs [0047], [0057], [0062], [0067], and [0077]; KUBO teaches, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the metallic pigment substrate, 5 to 100 parts of the coloring pigment, 0.5 to 20 parts of the amine component, 0.5 to 20 parts of the carboxylic acid component, 5 to 50 parts of the resin, and 5 to 30 parts of the oxide/hydroxide (i.e., silicon oxide/polysiloxane)), and Applicant’s specification clearly states that ratios of the amount of pigment to the total amount of composite pigment within a range of 10 to 60% by mass will result in the composite pigment as claimed wherein the pigment layer has the voids as claimed and the resin penetrates into the voids (see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0041]).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment which is the same or substantially similar to the claimed composite pigment and is made by the same or a substantially similar method; therefore, the composite pigment of KUBO would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the claimed composite pigment. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "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). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 1, wherein the composite pigment further comprises an organic binder (see KUBO at paragraphs [0052]-[0057] and [0061]-[0062], teaching amine and carboxylic acid, which is the organic binder used in the present invention as discussed in paragraph [0040] of the present specification), and wherein an amount of the at least one resin overlaps with and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 10 to 70% by mass relative to a total amount of the at least one pigment and the organic binder (see KUBO at paragraphs [0047], [0052]-[0057], [0061]-[0062] and [0066]-[0067], teaching 5 to 100 parts by mass of a coloring pigment, 5 to 50 parts by mass of a resin, and 0.5 to 20 parts by mass each of the carboxylic acid and amine, i.e., 1 to 40 parts by mass of the organic binder, which includes amounts of resin falling within the claimed range; e.g., for 50 parts pigment, 30 parts resin, 10 parts carboxylic acid and 10 parts amine, the amount of resin relative to a total amount of the at least one pigment and the organic binder would be about 43% by mass). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1 above, KUBO teaches a composite pigment according to claim 1, wherein the at least one selected from the group consisting of the silicon oxide, the polysiloxane, and the composites thereof is amorphous. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, KUBO teaches a composite pigment which is the same or substantially similar to the claimed composite pigment and is made by the same or a substantially similar method; therefore, the composite pigment of KUBO would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the claimed composite pigment. KUBO teaches including a silicon oxide and/or polysiloxane by stirring a dispersion of the colored metallic pigment and solvent (e.g., water and/or isopropyl alcohol) with a neutralizing agent, such as monoethanolamine, and a solution containing a silicon compound, e.g., a silica precursor such as tetraethoxysilane (TEOS), in a slurry or paste state in order to form the layer comprising silicon oxide on the surface of the colored metallic pigment, wherein the protective layer is formed by, e.g., heating/stirring the mixture at 50 to 150 °C for 30 minutes to 30 hours, then cooling to room temperature and filtering (see KUBO at paragraphs [0074], [0076], [0078]-[0082] and [0116]), and Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0063] and [0088] discloses a that process including adding a slurry of the resin-coated particles dispersed in isopropyl alcohol, adding water and monoethanolamine, then adding silica (TEOS) and stirring at 70 °C for 6 hours and cooling to room temperature and filtering to obtain a composite pigment coated with the pigment, resin and amorphous silica on the surface. Therefore, the silicon oxide/polysiloxane of KUBO would be expected to be amorphous. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "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). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) for claim 10 and under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 10-11 over KUBO as set forth above.
Applicant argues:
“Kubo discloses that the protective layer has an action of imparting water resistance by covering densely the colored metallic pigment… Therefore, it is inferred that the protective layer of Kubo does not have a structure with voids between a plurality of particles, but rather a structure in which the resin is packed without gaps in order to have water resistance” (see Remarks at pg. 5).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the present invention is nonobvious because KUBO describes the protective layer as “densely” covering the metallic pigment, therefore Applicant has inferred that there are not voids between the plurality of particles, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is merely an allegation that the composite pigment of KUBO would not have the claimed voids, which is not persuasive. Applicant has not demonstrated that the composite pigment of KUBO would not have the claimed voids. KUBO mentioning that the protective layer densely covers the pigment does not mean that there are not voids between the plurality of particles. As set forth in the rejection above, the composite pigment of KUBO is identical or substantially identical to the claimed pigment, and is formed by an identical or substantially identical process, therefore the composite pigment of KUBO would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the claimed composite pigment, including voids between the plurality of particles (it is also noted that in the present invention, the “voids” are filled with the resin which penetrates into the voids; see present claims 1 and 9). As discussed in the rejection above, KUBO teaches a weight ratio of the amount of pigment to the total amount composite pigment of approximately 2% to 44%, and Applicant’s specification clearly states that ratios of the amount of pigment to the total amount of composite pigment within a range of 10 to 60% by mass will result in the composite pigment as claimed wherein the pigment layer has the voids as claimed and the resin penetrates into the voids (see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0041]). MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "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). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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. The USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test the properties of the referenced product. However, in light of the reference's disclosure as discussed herein, it appears the claimed invention and that of KUBO have the same or very similar properties. Thus, the burden shifts to Applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Consequently, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
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 SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights