DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions & Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 were amended in Applicant’s reply and are examined in the instant action.
Claims 13-14 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. See paragraphs [0027]-[0028] of the instant specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the Ni equivalent satisfies” followed by “the Cr equivalent satisfies”. However, both of the equations have both Nieq and Creq in them.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are 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.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-12, claim was amended with the limitation “wherein the ferrous austenitic steel comprises ultrafine grained austenite of 20 µm or less”. However, the instant specification teaches as follows regarding the grain size.
[0049] In an embodiment of the present invention, ultra-fine grained (≤20 µm or ≤10 µm grain size) high Mn steels can be fabricated by a thermo-mechanical process consisting of heavy plastic deformation at ambient, cryogenic (e.g., liquid nitrogen temperature), or intermediate temperature (e.g., 150° C.-600° C.) to induce martensite (e.g., α′-martensite and/or ε-martensite) formation and subsequent annealing at elevated temperatures to reverse deformation-induced martensite into ultra-fine grained austenite.
Therefore, the specification teaches making of the ultra-fine grained crystal with the size of the grain being either less than or equal to 20 microns or less than or equal to 10 microns and does not teach it to have any other grain sizes as allowed by the instant claim and its recitation of “comprises” as the transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP § 2111.03. Therefore, instant claims contain 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.
Claims 2 and 4-12 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-10, instant claims recite “The ferrous austenitic steel of claim 1, wherein the ferrous austenitic steel further comprises” and is followed by ranges for a) one or more elements or b) Cr equivalent. The term “further comprising” employed in the instant claims has the plain meaning of “in addition to” thereby making it unclear if these ranges are indeed in addition to what is recited in claim 1 or whether it is requiring the steel to have the specific ranges of the instant claims as a whole. Please note that claim 1 requires specific ranges for Creq and Nieq and the elements or the terms recited in the instant claims that follows the “further comprising” are part of the Nieq or Creq formulae.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, claim 1, the claim that the instant claims depend upon, recites “the ferrous austenitic steel comprises a predominantly austenite phase and one or more minor phases of ferrite, martensite, carbide, nitride, and carbonitride” requiring the presence of the minor phase. However, claim 11 recites “The ferrous austenitic steel of claim 1, wherein the austenite phase is at least 95 vol%” and claim 12 recites “The ferrous austenitic steel of claim, wherein the minor phases are less than 5 vol%”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the instant claims require the presence of the minor phase as the terms “at least 95 vol%” employed in the instant claim 11 includes a value of 100% for austenite and “less than 5 vol%” employed in the instant claim 12 includes a value of zero for the minor phases both of which inferring that no minor phase is required to be present or in other words the steel being 100% austenite.
Claims 2, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 requires “The ferrous austenitic steel of claim 1, further comprising 18 wt % to 30 wt % manganese (Mn)”. However, 30 wt% of Mn alone provides a Creq of 15wt% which is beyond the required range for Creq recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 requires “The ferrous austenitic steel of claim 1, further comprising 0.05 wt % to 15 wt % Al.” However, 15 wt% of Al alone provide a Creq value of 232.5 which is beyond the required range for Creq recited in claim 1. Similar issue is found with Al range in claim 9.
Claim 7 requires “The ferrous austenitic steel of claim 1, further comprising 0.05 wt % to 10 wt % Si.” However, 10 wt% of Si alone provide a Creq value of 20 which is beyond the required range for Creq recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “0.01 wt% to 5 wt% of one or more of niobium (Nb), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), tungsten (W), tantalum (Ta), and molybdenum (Mo)”. The upper limit of 5wt% would provide Creq values beyond the required range for Creq recited in claim 1 specifically for elements Mo, V, Nb and Ti.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
List 1
Element
Instant Claims
(weight%)
Prior Art
Steel T
(mass%)
Prior Art
(mass%)
Creq
< 15
See below
See below
Nieq
> 7
See below
See below
Mn
18 – 30 claim 2
24.5
Mn: 8.0 % or more and 45.0 % or less
Cu
0.01 – 2 claim 4
-
Cu: 0.1 % or more and 10.0 % or less
C
C: 0.1 – 1.5 claim 5, 9
1.07
C: 0.10 % or more and 2.50 % or less
N
N: 0.001 – 1.0 claim 5, 9
0.0028
N: 0.5000 % or less
Al
0.05 – 15 claim 6
0.05 – 10 claim 9
0.019
Al: 0.001 % or more and 5.000 % or less
Si
0.05 – 10 claim 7
0.1 – 3 claim 9
-
Si: 0.01 % or more and 5.00 % or less
Nb, Ti, V, W, Ta, Mo
claim 8: total of one or more of Nb, Ti, V, W, Ta and Mo: 0.01 – 5
claim 9: 0.01 – 5 of one or more of Nb, Ti, V, W, Ta and Mo:
Ti: 0.75
V: 0.06
Ti: 0.10 % or more and 5.00 % or less
V: 0.01 % or more and 2.00 % or less
W: 0.01 % or more and 2.00 % or less
Mo: 0.1 % or more and 10.0 % or less
Fe + impurities
ferrous
Balance
Balance
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-2, 5, 8 and 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020/054553 A1 via its English equivalent EP 3835446 A1 of Terazawa (EP’446).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 8 and 10-12, WO 2020/054553 A1 via its English equivalent EP 3835446 A1 of Terazawa (EP’446) teaches “a steel material and a method of producing the same, and particularly to an improvement in wear resistance of an austenitic steel material” “an austenitic steel material” “a microstructure containing 90 % or more of an austenite phase and 0.2 % or more of Ti carbides in area ratio” having specific compositions wherein a specific example, Steel sample ID T in Table 1 that lies within the claimed compositional range of the instant claims as shown in the List 1 above thereby anticipating the alloy of the instant claims. {abstract, [0001]-[0003], [0009]-[0048], Table 1-4, claims 1-6}. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) See MPEP § 2131.03 I.
The prior art teaches that its steel has [0045] “the austenite phase in the microstructure is 90 % or more and may be 100 % in area ratio. As used herein, the ratio of "austenite phase in the microstructure" means a ratio (area ratio) of the austenite phase to a total of the microstructure excluding inclusions and precipitates. The microstructure other than the austenite phase may be one or more of a ferrite phase, a bainite microstructure, a martensite microstructure and a pearlite microstructure having a total area ratio of less than 10 %” and points out in Table 2 that the aforementioned Steel sample ID T has a microstructure with area ratio of austenite phase being 98% and area ratio of Ti carbide being thereby anticipating the microstructure of claim 1 and the recited ranges of claims 11-12.
Regarding the formulaic expressions of Nieq and Creq and their ranges, the composition of the steel provides, in wt%, 44.42 for Nieq and 1.7195 for Creq thereby meeting the recited ranges. In addition, it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357, 553 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Saklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75.
Regarding the amended limitations of grain size and strength of instant claim 1, it is noted that the prior art is silent regarding the ranges of the grain size and strength as recited in the instant claim. However, MPEP § 2112 III provides that A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102 /103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102 /103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims. See MPEP § 2112 III. 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). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. As the prior art teaches a substantially identical product with identical composition and identical microstructure as shown above, one skilled in the art would expect the steel of the prior art to have a strength as claimed in the instant claim. Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
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.
Claims 4, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/054553 A1 via its English equivalent EP 3835446 A1 of Terazawa (EP’446).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 7 and 9, claims 4, 6, 7 and 9 depend on claim 1 and the relevance of WO 2020/054553 A1 via its English equivalent EP 3835446 A1 of Terazawa (EP’446) regarding claim 1 is set forth supra.
EP’446 further teaches “a steel material and a method of producing the same, and particularly to an improvement in wear resistance of an austenitic steel material” “an austenitic steel material” “a microstructure containing 90 % or more of an austenite phase and 0.2 % or more of Ti carbides in area ratio” with a composition wherein the claimed ranges of the constituent elements of the instant alloy of the instant claims overlap or lie inside the ranges of various elements of the alloy of the prior art as shown in the List 1 above. {abstract, [0001]-[0003], [0009]-[0048], Table 1-4, claims 1-6}. As the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established as it 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 to select the claimed composition over the prior art disclosure since the prior art teaches the similar property/utility throughout the disclosed ranges. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
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 1-2 and 4-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/030,198 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application teaches an austenitic steel with identical or substantially identical ranges for composition, Nieq, Creq, strength and microstructure phases.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the process differences, it is noted that Applicant provides no data in support of the arguments. It is noted that the instant specification teaches “[0049] In an embodiment of the present invention, ultra-fine grained (≤20 µm or ≤10 µm grain size) high Mn steels can be fabricated by a thermo-mechanical process consisting of heavy plastic deformation at ambient, cryogenic (e.g., liquid nitrogen temperature), or intermediate temperature (e.g., 150° C.-600° C.) to induce martensite (e.g., α′-martensite and/or ε-martensite) formation and subsequent annealing at elevated temperatures to reverse deformation-induced martensite into ultra-fine grained austenite.” Moreover, the prior art teaches [0044] “The microstructure of the steel material of the present disclosure is mainly an austenite phase from the viewpoint of improving the impact wear resistance. To obtain the effect, the austenite phase is set to 90 % or more in area ratio. If the austenite phase is less than 90 % in area ratio, the impact wear resistance is deteriorated, and further, the ductility, toughness, workability, and the toughness of a welded portion (heat-affected zone) are also deteriorated. Therefore, the austenite phase in the microstructure is 90 % or more and may be 100 % in area ratio.” which is a substantially identical structure. Moreover, the prior art and instant steel has substantially identical composition. Therefore, one skilled in the art would expect the steel of the prior art to have a strength as claimed in the instant claim. Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). As Applicant has not provided any objective evidence to conclude that the prior art would not have the recited properties, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, it is noted that the Applicant has not pointed any errors with the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOPHY S. KOSHY whose telephone number is (571)272-0030. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 5:00 PM.
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, KEITH HENDRICKS can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733