DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The amendment filed by Applicant on April 14, 2026 has been fully considered. The amendment to instant claim 1 is acknowledged. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations of wherein said at least one physical blowing agent is selected from the group consisting of isobutene, dimethyl ether, methylene chloride, acetone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydro(chloro)fluoroolefins (HFOs/HCFOs), dialkyl ethers, cycloalkylene ethers, ketones, fluorinated ethers, perfluorinated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons, and mixtures thereof: and wherein said physical blowing agent is preset in an amount from 1 to 80 parts by weight per hundred weight parts of the at least one isocyanate-reactive compound. These limitations in their combination were not previously presented. In light of the amendment, the previous rejections are withdrawn. The new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 2017/0114211) in view of Thiele et al (US 2004/0115415), as evidenced by Materials Database - Thermal Properties - Thermtest Inc.
PNG
media_image1.png
28
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism. See MPEP § 2124.
4. Kumar et al discloses a composition for forming a rigid polyurethane foam composite with closed cells ([0076], [0082]), the composition comprising:
- A) a polyisocyanate such as a methylene diphenyl diisocyanate ([0019], as to instant claim 9);
- B) at least one polyol having an average functionality of 1.8-8 and an average hydroxyl number of 100-600 ([0037], Abstract, as to instant claim 10);
- C) 35-90%wt ([0052], as to instant claim 2, 19) of a particulate filler having a bulk density of 1 g/cc or greater, specifically1-3.5 g/cc ([0049], as to instant claim 20);
- D) 0.1-20%wt of a lightweight filler having a bulk density of less than 1 g/cc ([0054], as to instant claims 6, 19);
- E) a blowing agent or foaming agents ([0064]), wherein water is cited as exemplary foaming agent ([0065]) and a
- F) a surfactant, a chemical blowing agent ([0066]),
Wherein the particulate filler C) is selected from the group of alumina, magnesium oxide, barium sulfate, calcium carbonate ([0050], as to instant claim 3) and the lightweight filler D) comprises an expanded perlite ([0055], as to instant claim 7).
5. The weight ratio of the component D) to the component C) is 1:900 to1:7 ([0058]); therefore, the particulate filler component C) is used in more than 80%wt based on the combined weight of the components C) and D) (as to instant claim 19).
6. Based on the teachings of Kumar et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use alumina, magnesium oxide and/or barium sulfate, each having the bulk density of as high as 3.5 g/cc as the component C) in the composition of Kumar et al and expanded perlite as the component D) in the composition of Kumar et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability (as to instant claims 1, 19). Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
7. Given i) the component C) is having a bulk density of 3.5 g/cc;
ii) the component D) is having a bulk density of 0.99 g/cc ([0054]);
ii) the weight ratio between the component D) and C) is 1:7 ([0058]), i.e. 12.5%wt of the component D) and 87.5%wt of the component C); or the weight ratio between the component D) and C) is 1:900 ([0058]), i.e. 0.1%wt %wt of the component D) and 99.9%wt of the component C),
therefore, the bult density of the filler composition comprising the components C) and D) will intrinsically and necessarily be more than 2.4 g/cc as well (as to instant claim 20).
Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
8. All ranges in the composition of Kumar et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
9. As evidenced by Materials Database - Thermal Properties - Thermtest Inc.
PNG
media_image1.png
28
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
aluminum oxide has a thermal conductivity of 17.573 W/m*K, barium sulfate has a thermal conductivity 1.674 W/m*K (as also presented below):
PNG
media_image2.png
155
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
217
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Given the composition of Kumar et al comprises aluminum oxide, barium sulfate or their combination as the filler component C), the overall filler will have thermal conductivity of less than 25 W/m*K (as to instant claim 4). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
10. It is further noted that the limitation “for manufacturing an inorganic-filler based closed-cell rigid polyurethane or polyisocyanurate (PU or PIR) containing foam having a calorific value below 6 MJ/kg” of instant claim 1 is an intended use limitation. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In the alternative, since the polyurethane foams of Kumar et al are produced from substantially the same compositions as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the polyurethane foams of Kumar et al will intrinsically and necessarily be closed-cell rigid polyurethane or polyisocyanurate foams having a calorific value below 6 MJ/kg as well. 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 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
11. Kumar et al explicitly teaches the polyurethane composite further comprising foaming agents and blowing agents ([0064]).
Though in paragraph [0076] Kumar et al teaches that in some embodiments the composite can be free or substantially free of a blowing agent or foaming agent other than water,
i) said statement clearly shows that only in “some embodiments” composites maybe free or substantially free from foaming/blowing agents other than water, i.e. it is not required that any composite of Kumar et al should be free of any foaming agents or blowing agents other than water;
ii) by using the term “can be free” said statement clearly shows that the composites may or may not be free from said blowing/foaming agents other than water;
iii) said statement shows that composites can be substantially free of the blowing agents or foaming agents, meaning that the blowing agents or foaming agents still can be present in at least a minor amount;
therefore, based on the teachings of Kumar et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art that foaming/blowing agents other than water can still be used in the composite of Kumar et al in at least in minor amount, especially since Kumar et al explicitly teaches that said foaming agents and blowing agents can be used in the polyurethane composite as cited in paragraph [0064], with water as being cited only as an example ([0065]).
12. Though Kumar et al recites the composition comprising blowing agents, Kumar et al does not explicitly teach the blowing agent being a hydrocarbon, used in amount of as low as 1 pbw per 100 pbw of the at least one isocyanate-reactive compound.
13. However, Thiele et al discloses a composite body made of a foamable composition comprising:
A) a polyisocyanate such as toluene diisocyanate, diphenyl methane 4,4’-diisocyanate (MDI) ([0035]);
B) a polyol having 2-10 hydroxyl groups per molecule ([0037]);
C) a hydrocarbon such as cyclopentane, used in amount of 1-15%wt of the composition, and used in combination with water ([0022], [0018], [0067]);
D) a catalyst, water ([0017]) and further
D) about 80%wt of at least one filler comprising barium sulfate, aluminum oxide and mixtures thereof ([0015]-[0016], [0069]-[0070]).
14. Since both Kumar et al and Thiele et al are related to compositions for making a polyurethane foam including polyisocyanate, a polyol, inorganic fillers and further a blowing agent that includes water, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Thiele et al teaches the use of 1-15%wt of cyclopentane as the blowing agent used in combination with water in such compositions, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Thiele et al and Kumar et al, and to include or obvious to try to include, at least in a minor amount such as 1%wt or 2%wt, cyclopentane as the blowing agent in the composition of Kumar et al in addition to the water, since said hydrocarbons are taught in the art as being used in combination with water as the blowing agents in the filled polyurethane compositions as shown by Thiele et al, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
It is further noted that instant specification recites that combination of both water and other physical blowing agents can be used in the reaction mixture of instant invention (p. 16, line 25-p. 17, line 2 of instant specification).
15. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 2017/0114211) in view of Thiele et al (US 2004/0115415) and Ward, III et al (US 5,371,113), as evidenced by Materials Database - Thermal Properties - Thermtest Inc.
PNG
media_image1.png
28
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism. See MPEP § 2124.
16. The discussion with respect to Kumar et al (US 2017/0114211) in view of Thiele et al (US 2004/0115415), set forth in paragraphs 3-14 above, is incorporated here by reference.
17. Though Kumar et al does not teach the composition further comprising carbon dioxide scavenger,
Ward, III et al discloses an insulating polyurethane foam, produced from a foaming composition comprising a solid reagent capable of removing carbon dioxide, specifically alkali metal oxides and hydroxides (col. 1, lines 58-64; col. 2, lines 27-47), wherein the produced foam is having low thermal conductivity (col. 1, lines 5-15).
18. Since addition of solid reagents capable of removing carbon dioxide, specifically alkali metal oxides and hydroxides, to foamable compositions for producing polyurethane foams allows formation of said foams having low thermal conductivity, as taught by Ward, III et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ward, III et al and Kumar et al, and to include, or obvious to try to include a solid reagent capable of removing said carbon dioxide, specifically alkali metal oxides and hydroxides, into the composition of Kumar et al, so to produce the polyurethane foam having a low thermal conductivity as well, given such is desired, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
19. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 2017/0114211) in view of Thiele et al (US 2004/0115415), Kuwabara et al (US 5,779,775) and Laoutid et al (US 2008/0203348), as evidenced by Materials Database - Thermal Properties - Thermtest Inc.
PNG
media_image1.png
28
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism. See MPEP § 2124.
20. The discussion with respect to Kumar et al (US 2017/0114211) in view of Thiele et al (US 2004/0115415), set forth in paragraphs 3-14 above, is incorporated here by reference.
21. Though Kumar et al does not teach the particle size of the particulate filler component C),
1) Kuwabara et al teaches the use of inorganic fillers having a bulk density of up to 10 g/cc and particle diameters of 1 mm or less as flame retardants in compositions for making a hard polyurethane foam (col. 3, lines 27-33).
2) Though Kuwabara et al does not specifically recite said inorganic flame retardants used for making said polyurethane foam being aluminum oxide or magnesium oxide, Laoutid et al teaches the inorganic flame retardants used for polyurethane foams including aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide ([0060], [0061], Abstract, claim 7).
22. Since i) Kumar et al discloses the composition comprising aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide as the particulate filler component C) ([0050]), but does not specify the particle size of said filler, ii) the inorganic filler particles, such as aluminum oxide or magnesium oxide, having bulk density of as high as 10 g/cc and particle size of 1 mm or less are used in the compositions for making polyurethane foam as flame retardant, as shown by Kuwabara et al and Laoutid et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kuwabara et al, Laoutid et al and Kumar et al, and to include, or obvious to try to include at least partially, the inorganic filler particles including aluminum oxide and/or magnesium oxide having a bulk density of as high as 3.5 g/cc and particle size of 1 mm or less into the composition of Kumar et al, so to further improve flame retardant properties of the composition of Kumar et al, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
23. It is further noted that the limitation “for manufacturing an inorganic-filler based closed-cell rigid polyurethane or polyisocyanurate (PU or PIR) containing foam having a calorific value below 6 MJ/kg” of instant claim 1 is an intended use limitation. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In the alternative, since the polyurethane foams of Kumar et al in view of Thiele et al, Kuwabara et al and Laoutid et al are produced from substantially the same compositions as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the polyurethane foams of Kumar et al in view of Thiele et al, Kuwabara et al and Laoutid et al will intrinsically and necessarily be closed-cell rigid polyurethane or polyisocyanurate foams having a calorific value below 6 MJ/kg as well. 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 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection I
24. Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of a copending application 18/832,271 (published US 2025/0101198).
25. The rejection is adequately set forth on pages 17-21 of an Office action mailed on August 8, 2025 and on pages 15-16 of an Office action mailed on January 15, 2026, and is incorporated here by reference.
26. With respect to amended claim 1,
The copending application 18/832,271 claims the at least one physical blowing agent being selected from the list comprising isobutene, dimethyl ether, methylene chloride, acetone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydro(chloro)fluoroolefins (HFOs/HCFOs), dialkyl ethers, cycloalkylene ethers, ketones, fluorinated ethers, perfluorinated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons (e.g. isopentane, n-pentane, cyclopentane) and mixtures thereof.
The physical blowing agent is used in amount of 1-80 pbw per 100 pbw of the isocyanate-reactive compound (p. 17, lines 13-17 of specification of the application 18/832,271). Case law holds that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970).
27. In response to Applicant’s request to hold in abeyance a response, such as, a terminal disclaimer (TD) to the pending ODP rejection, it is noted that the filing of a TD cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP 804 (I) (B) (1) quoted below:
“As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection II
28. Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of a copending application 18/833,019 (published US 2025/0129227).
29. The rejection is adequately set forth on pages 21-24 of an Office action mailed on August 8, 2025 and on pages 17-18 of an Office action mailed on January 15, 2026, and is incorporated here by reference.
30. With respect to amended claim 1,
The copending application 18/833,019 claims the at least one physical blowing agent being selected from the list comprising isobutene, dimethyl ether, methylene chloride, acetone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydro(chloro)fluoroolefins (HFOs/HCFOs), dialkyl ethers, cycloalkylene ethers, ketones, fluorinated ethers, perfluorinated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons (e.g. isopentane, n-pentane, cyclopentane) and mixtures thereof.
The physical blowing agent is used in amount of 1-200 pbw, or 5-150 pbw per 100 pbw of the isocyanate-reactive compound (p. 17, lines 20-25 of specification of the application 18/832,271). Case law holds that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970).
31. In response to Applicant’s request to hold in abeyance a response, such as, a terminal disclaimer (TD) to the pending ODP rejection, it is noted that the filing of a TD cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP 804 (I) (B) (1) quoted below:
“As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
Response to Arguments
32. Applicant's arguments filed on April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejections and discussion set forth above.
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 IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights