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 .
Applicants’ arguments, filed 05/18/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Necessitated by Amendment
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (WO 2019/185851 A1, publication date 10/03/2019; previously cited) and Dimitrova (US 6559156 B1, publication date 08/09/2019; previously cited) in view of Goodwin et al. (Anionic Polymerization, Springer, 2015, p. 625-658; previously cited), as evidenced by CAS (common chemistry, 2026 [retrieved 06/26/2026], https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=119724-54-8) and EPA (Substance registry service, 2026 [accessed 06/26/2026], https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-details/1846323).
Regarding instant claims 1, 3, 4-7, 10-12, 14 and 15, Knight relates to a "copolymer dispersant having acrylic acid, hydrophobic monomer, alkyl acrylate of a monoalkyI polyethylene glycol, and optionally strong acid derivatives of (meth)acrylic acid combined with [an] agrochemical active" (i.e., limitation of instant claims 1, 11 and 12) [abstract]. At Table 4 of page 33 Knight discloses a composition comprising the active buprofezin (i.e., hydrophobic solid active according to instant claim 10):
PNG
media_image1.png
391
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein “C1 - copolymer of acrylic acid/styrene/ AMPS/methoxy (polyethylene glycol) methacrylate” (i.e., instant claims 3, and 4-7), “C3 - copolymer of acrylic acid/styrene/methoxy (polyethylene glycol) methacrylate (MW 500)” and “C4 - copolymer of acrylic acid/p-methyl styrene/AMPS/ methoxy (polyethylene glycol) methacrylate” [p. 30, lines 14-25]. Additionally, Knight discloses the composition may further comprise dispersants such as a comb copolymer having capped polyethylene glycol side chains on a polyacrylic backbone [p. 13, line 24-26].
Knight does not disclose a non-ionic polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene oxide graft copolymer.
Goodwin describes the difference between graft and comb copolymers: "Comb structures are the simplest form of these branched architectures, where both the main chain and branches have the same chemical composition. In contrast, graft copolymers are comprised of a backbone and side chains that differ in chemical composition" (emphasis added) [p. 626-627, last and first paragraph].
Dimitrova discloses an aqueous suspension concentrate comprising solid pyrimethanil (i.e., solid agrochemical active) [abstract and col. 1, line 9]. Dimitrova discloses the “formulation also comprises a dispersant, such as a polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer … in amounts of 1 to 10% w/v” (emphasis added) [col. 1, lines 51-54].
Knight teaches the components of the instantly recited suspension type agrochemical formulation, concentrate agrochemical formulation and agrochemical dispersant and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the composition of Table 4 with the comb copolymer having capped polyethylene glycol side chains on a polyacrylic backbone dispersant. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Additionally, it is generally prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the present case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have selected the graft copolymer dispersant of Dimitrova as the comb copolymer desired Knight. While Knight refers the copolymer dispersant as a ‘comb copolymer’, in view of the structural description provided by Goodwin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Knight was referring to the structure of graft copolymers. As such, Dimitrova discloses polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer as a suitable agrochemical dispersant having capped polyethylene glycol side chains on a polyacrylic backbone, as desired by Knight.
Similarly, when selecting the polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer of Dimitrova, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have provided the graft copolymer in amounts from 1-10% w/v, as disclosed by Dimitrova. This selection would have been obvious because Dimitrova discloses concentrations between 1 and 10% w/v are suitable for the polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer when used as a dispersant in agrochemical suspension concentrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that combining the 1-10%w/v of Dimitrova with the composition of Table 4 means adding 1-10 grams graft copolymer to the composition because the total solution volume of Table 4 is 100 ml (i.e., 1-10% w/v of 100mL is 1-10 grams). With the addition of 1 gram graft copolymer the total weight of composition taught by Dimitrova and Table 4 of Knight would have been 108.78 grams, making the graft copolymer present at 0.92% w/w. And, with the addition of 10 grams graft copolymer, the total weight of composition taught by Dimitrova and Table 4 of Knight would have been 108.78 grams, making the graft copolymer present at 8.5 % w/w.
Finally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the present case, the prior art ranges for the amount of copolymer dispersant (2.41-3.62% w/w) and graft copolymer (120-2.41% w/w) overlap with the ranges taught by the prior art (about 2.8% and 0.92%w/w to 8.5% w/w) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists for each.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have formulated a suspension type water medium, a suspension concentrate and a dispersant comprising copolymer dispersant, polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer (i.e., non-ionic polymethyl methacrylate polyethylene oxide graft copolymer) and hydrophobic solid active (i.e., buprofezin). Wherein the copolymer dispersant comprises acrylic acid, styrene, methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate (alkylacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol) and acrylamido methyl propyl sulphonate (AMPS; strong acid). Wherein the copolymer dispersant and graft copolymer are present within the instantly claimed amounts. Additionally, considering Knight discloses the copolymer (C1/C3/C4) of Table 4 is the desired copolymer dispersant having acrylic acid, hydrophobic monomer, alkyl acrylate of a monoalkyI polyethylene glycol, and optionally strong acid derivatives of (meth)acrylic acid, the copolymer (C1/C3/C4) of Table 4 reads on the copolymer dispersants of instant claims 11 and 12.
Regarding instant claim 3, Knight discloses the acrylic acid component may be methacrylic acid (i.e., limitation of instant claims 2 and 3) [p. 4, lines 22-23].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have simply substituted the acrylic acid component of the copolymer discloses in Table 4 for the methacrylic acid because Knight discloses they are both suitable for the same intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 II. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the methacrylic acid of Knight in place of the acrylic acid of Table 4 (disclosed by Knight) as the acrylic acid monomer of the copolymer dispersant with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the methacrylic acid monomer of Knight) in place of another (e.g., the acrylic acid monomer of Table 4; Knight) in order to achieve predictable results (acrylic acid monomer) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to formulated the composition as taught by Knight and Dimitrova wherein the copolymer dispersant comprises a methacrylic acid monomer as the acrylic acid monomer.
Regarding instant claim 8, Dimitrova discloses the polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer dispersant has a molecular weight between 20,000 and 30,000 [col. 1, line 53]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the present case the claimed range for the molecular weight (5,000 to 40,000) overlaps with the range in the prior art and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding instant claim 13, Knight discloses a method of treating plants comprising applying a formulation comprising the dispersant and agrochemical active to the vegetation, or the surrounding environment [p. 36, lines 19-21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have applied the formulation taught by Knight and Dimitrova to vegetation or the surrounding environment (e.g., the soil around the plants) because Knight discloses that is the intended method of use for the agrochemical formulation.
Regarding instant claim 16, Knight discloses the copolymer in the composition of Table 4 comprises “C1 - copolymer of acrylic acid/styrene/ AMPS/methoxy (polyethylene glycol) methacrylate”, (i.e., MPEG-MA, AMPS, acrylic acid and styrene) [p. 30, lines 14-25]. Knight also discloses the biocides of the compositions are selected from insecticides (e.g., buprofezin) and herbicides [p. 15, lines 10-11].
Dimitrova discloses “Atlox 4913 is polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer; acts as a dispersant” [col. 2, lines 12-13].
The CAS No. of Atlox 4913 is 119724-54-8, as evidenced by CAS.
The CAS No. 119724-54-8 represents methyl methacrylate polymer with methacrylic acid and methoxy polyoxyethylene methacrylate, as evidence by EPA.
Accordingly, the Atlox 4913 of Dimitrova is methyl methacrylate polymer with methacrylic acid and methoxy polyoxyethylene methacrylate.
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have selected atlox 4913 (i.e., polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer; acts as a dispersant) for the polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer desired by Knight and Dimitrova, because Dimitrova discloses it is a suitable dispersant.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have to have simply substituted the buprofezin of the composition disclosed in Table 4 of Knight for the herbicides disclosed by Knight because Knight discloses they are both suitable biocides for the compositions. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the herbicide of Knight in place of the buprofezin (insecticide) of Knight to serve as the required biocide with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the herbicide of Knight) in place of another (e.g., the buprofezin (insecticide) of Knight) in order to achieve predictable results (biocide) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 17/042,632 in view of Dimitrova (US 6559156 B1, publication date 08/09/2019).
The claims of ‘632 disclose an agrochemical formulation comprising a copolymer dispersant and at least one agrochemical active [claim 1]. The copolymer dispersant comprises methacrylic acid (i.e., instant claims 2 and 3), styrene (i.e., instant claims 4 and 5) and an alkyacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol (i.e., instant claim 1) [claim 1]. The alkyacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol may be methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate (i.e., instant claim 6) [claim 4]. Additionally, the copolymer dispersant may comprise acrylamido methyl propyl sulphonate (i.e., instant claim 7) [claim 5].
The claims of ‘632 do not disclose a polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene oxide graft copolymer.
Dimitrova discloses an aqueous suspension concentrate comprising solid pyrimethanil (i.e., agrochemical composition) [abstract and col. 1, line 9]. Dimitrova discloses the “formulation also comprises a dispersant, such as a polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer” [col. 1, lines 51-54]. Furthermore, Dimitrova discloses “Atlox 4913 is polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer; acts as a dispersant” [col. 2, lines 12-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have to have combined the dispersant of Dimitrova with the composition disclosed in the claims of ‘632. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide additional dispersants to the formulation. One would have had an expectation of success because Dimitrova discloses the dispersant is useful in agrochemical formulations. Additionally, in combining these elements one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
Furthermore, in combining these elements one would have been motivated to determine the optimal working ranges of each dispersant. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have formulated a composition comprising the copolymer dispersant and graft copolymer within the instantly claimed amounts through routine optimization. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable ranges by routine experimentation where, as is here, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the amount of graft copolymer dispersant to find the optimal working ranges and because of the “normal desire of scientists to improve upon what is already generally known”. Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Please refer to MPEP 2144.05.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have formulated a suspension type water medium, a suspension concentrate and a dispersant comprising copolymer dispersant, polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer (a non-ionic graft copolymer of acrylic ester and oxyalkylene) and flufenacet. Wherein the copolymer dispersant comprises methacrylic acid, styrenes (hydrophobic monomer), methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate (alkylacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol) and acrylamido methyl propyl sulphonate (strong acid). Wherein the copolymer dispersant and graft copolymer are within the instantly claimed weight ratios.
The claims of ‘632 also disclose a method of use comprising applying the composition to vegetation or the immediate environment.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
1) On page 7 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that the rejection based on Knight in view of Dimitrova and Goodwin should not be maintained against amended claims 1 and 12 because the disclosure therein does not disclose all features of the claimed formulation, specifically the newly recited weight percents.
This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the combined references teach a compositions comprising 2.8% w/w of the claimed copolymer dispersant and 0.92%w/w to 8.5% w/w (based on the 1-10% w/v disclosed by Dimitrova) of the claimed graft copolymer (see Knight at page 33, Table 4; Dimitrova at col. 1, lines 51-55; and the obviousness explanations in this office action).
2) On page 7 of their Remarks, Applicant argues the combination of references relied on improper hindsight.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, Knight specifically desires additional dispersants such as acrylic copolymers such as the comb copolymer having capped polyethylene glycol side chains on a polyacrylic backbone (see Knight at page 13, lines 24-26] and Dimitrova discloses copolymer having capped polyethylene glycol side chains on a polyacrylic backbone as dispersants in agrochemical formulations (see Dimitrova at abstract and column 1). The Examiner respectfully submits there is no improper hindsight reasoning because the prior art would have motivated a skilled artisan to combine the cited references in exactly the way discussed above and of record.
3) On pages 7-8 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that Tables 1-3 of the instant specification demonstrate significant stability improvements for the inventive compositions.
This argument is not persuasive. In Table 2 of the specification, Applicants appear to show that formulations comprising a combination of copolymer dispersant “D1” (MPEG-MA, AMPS, acrylic acid and styrene) and the nonionic graft copolymer “D2” (methyl methacrylate polymer with methacrylic acid and methoxy polyoxyethylene methacrylate) display an improvement in suspensibility over 14 days, when compared to the closest prior art. However, the examples in the specification (See Table 1) that illustrate these results do not disclose any structural information about the copolymers (e.g., copolymer molecular weights, ratios of monomers, monomer arrangements, molecular weight of the monomers, etc.) beyond identifying the monomers. Additionally, Applicant has not provided an explanation as to why a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the copolymers of the examples to represent the copolymers as instantly claimed.
The structure limitations of the copolymers are important because they are generally understood to affect the properties of the polymers. For example, see Gentekos et al. (Nature Reviews; Materials, v. 4, p. 761-774). Gentekos discloses that “The manipulation of a polymer’s properties without altering its chemical composition is a major challenge in polymer chemistry, materials science and engineering. Although variables such as chemical structure, branching, molecular weight and dispersity are routinely used to control the architecture and physical properties of polymers, little attention is given to the often profound effect of the breadth and shape of the molecular- weight distribution (MWD) on the properties of polymers” [abstract] and that The MWD shape also has a significant influence over the rheological and mechanical properties of homopolymers and block copolymers” (i.e., again suggesting the importance of molecular weight) [p. 12, col. 2, para. 1]. As such, it is unclear if the instant examples would demonstrate the same improved suspensibility across all copolymer molecular weights, ratios of monomers, monomer arrangements, monomer molecular weights, etc.
Similarly, it does not appear that the independent claims are commensurate in scope with the formulations of Table 1, which display the improved suspensibility in Table 2, because it is unclear what molecular weights, ratios of monomers, monomer arrangements and molecular weight of the monomers of the D1 and D2 copolymers would have improved the suspensibility over 14 days. Without any structural information, beyond the class of copolymer, it does not appear that the results reasonably represent the invention as recited in the claims claimed which encompasses all molecular weights, all arrangements and all ratios of monomers. Moreover, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the examples because the independent claim recites the strong acid derivative as optional. MPEP 716.02(d).
Furthermore, improved viscosity does not appear to be unexpected in view of the prior art. See, for example, Warrington et al. (US 20040014800 A1, publication date 01/22/2004). Warrington discloses an aqueous pesticide suspension which shows less variation in viscosity [abstract]. According to Warrington “an acceptable consistency of viscosity is obtained using amounts of 0.1 to 0.9%, preferably 0.1 to 0.5% w/v of component (d), typically 0.3 to 0.4% w/v. Any non-ionic polymethyl methacrylate-polyethylene oxide graft copolymer may be used” [0023].
With respect to the claimed ranges, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP 716.02(d)). In the present case applicant has not provided results outside the claimed ranges.
4) On page 9 of their Remarks, Applicant argues the instant claims are not obvious of the conflicting claims because the conflicting claims, in view of Dimitrova, do not teach the newly recited weight percents.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons above and of record. The instant claims continue to read on the copending claims.
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 COLMAN WELLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
/C.T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/WALTER E WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights