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 1-5 are examined of which claim 1 was amended in Applicant’s reply.
Claims 6-9 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06 August 2025.
Specification
The amendment filed 17 April 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The disclosure including the specification, the title, the abstract and the claims were amended to replace the term “plate” with the term “strip” which is not found in the original disclosure as the terms “plate” and “strip” have different meanings in the art.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it was amended to replace the term “plate” with the term “strip” which is not found in the original disclosure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Instant claims were amended on 04/17/2023 to replace the term “plate” with the term “strip” which is not found in the original disclosure. However, one skilled in the art recognizes that the terms “plate” and “strip” have different meanings in the art and are not interchangeable. Applicant has not provided any basis/support for these amendments in the original disclosure or any evidence that would lead one skilled in the art to conclude that these terms are interchangeable. It is noted that the instant amendment dated 11/20/2025 did not revert these changes and therefore the rejection is maintained.
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.
List 1
Element
Instant Claims
(weight%)
US’399
(weight%)
US’590
(weight%)
C
0.05 – 0.15
0.05 – 0.15
0.02 – 0.11
Si
0.01 – 1.0
0.01 – 1.0
0.1 – 0.5
Mn
1.0 – 2.0
1.0 – 2.3
1.5 – 2.5
Cr
0.005 – 1.0
0.005 – 1.0
0.1 – 0.5
Al
0.01 – 0.1
0.01 – 0.1
0.01 – 0.06
P
0.001 – 0.02
0.001 – 0.05
0.01 or less excluding 0
S
0.001 – 0.01
0.001 – 0.01
0.01 or less excluding 0
N
0.001 – 0.01
0.001 – 0.01
20 – 70 ppm
Ti
0.005 – 0.11
0.005 – 0.11
0.01 – 0.03
Nb
0.005 – 0.07
0.005 – 0.07
0.005 – 0.08
Fe + impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/111702 A1 via its US English equivalent US 2022/0010399 A1 of Kim (US’399).
Regarding claims 1-5, WO 2020/111702 A1 via its US English equivalent US 2022/0010399 A1 of Kim (US’399) teaches [0001] “a high-strength steel material having excellent durability” [0014] “a high-strength steel material having excellent durability, includes, by weight, carbon (C): 0.05 to 0.15%, silicon (Si): 0.01 to 1.0%, manganese (Mn): 1.0 to 2.3%, aluminum (Al): 0.01 to 0.1%, chromium (Cr): 0.005 to 1.0%, phosphorus (P): 0.001 to 0.05%, sulfur (S): 0.001 to 0.01%, nitrogen (N): 0.001 to 0.01%, niobium (Nb): 0.005 to 0.07%, titanium (Ti): 0.005 to 0.11%, a balance of Fe, and other inevitable impurities” {US’399 [0023]-[0079]}. Therefore, the prior art teaches 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. 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.
The prior art is silent regarding the recited [Relational Expression 1] and its range of instant claim 1. However, as the prior art discloses a composition wherein the claimed ranges of the various elements of the instant alloy overlap or lie inside the ranges of various elements of the alloy of the prior art as shown above, the ranges of the formulaic expression of the instant claims would also overlap or lie inside the values of the prior art resulting from the instant formulaic expressions. 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.
The prior art teaches [0015] “a sum of a fraction of a ferrite phase and a fraction of a bainite phase in a microstructure is 90% or more, and a fraction of a crystal grain, in which an aspect ratio (a ratio of short side/long side) of the crystal grain in a central portion (a portion ranging from a t/4 point to a t/2 point in a thickness direction) is 0.3 or less, is less than 50%, and a length of a grain boundary observed in a unit area (1 mm2) in the central portion is 700 mm or more.” [0067] “In this case, a sum of a fraction of the ferrite phase and a fraction of the bainite phase maybe 90% or more, by area, of which the bainite phase may have, by area fraction, 50% or more.” [0069] “In this case, the ferrite phase may refer to a polygonal ferrite phase, a high-temperature ferrite phase, and the bainite phase may refer to both an acicular ferrite phase and a bainitic ferrite phase, a low-temperature ferrite phase.” [0070] “A remainder structure excluding the composite structure may include an MA phase (a mixture of martensite and austenite) and a martensite phase. In this case, the two phases may be combined and included in an area fraction of 1 to 10%, of which the MA phase may be included in an amount of less than 3%.” [0073] “Even when a steel material of the present disclosure contains 3% or less (including 0%) of a pearlite phase in addition to the above-described structure, there maybe no great difficulty in securing intended properties.” thereby reading on the instant recited microstructure and the ranges of the various phases. The prior art does not require the presence of pearlite or carbides therefore reads on all of the recited microstructure.
The prior art teaches [0077] “A steel material of the present disclosure having the above-described alloy composition and microstructure may be a thick steel material having a thickness of 5 to 12 mm” thereby reading on the recited thickness of the instant claim 1. Regarding the claimed limitation of thickness of “15 mm or more” of instant claim 2, the prior art does not explicitly teach the specific thickness ranges of the instant claims. However, MPEP provides that with regard to the shape, merely changing the shape/size/proportion of a prior art product would not be sufficient to distinguish from that prior art product as it has been held that changing the shape/size/proportion would require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV). Therefore, making the specific thickness as claimed in the instant claims would require only ordinary skill in the art since thickness modification using casting is well known in the art of steel making.
It is noted that the prior art is silent regarding its alloy having the properties of a) “a product (YSxT-El) of a yield strength and an elongation of the steel strip is 16,000 MPa·% or more” [claim 1] and b) “a difference between an average hardness value and a maximum hardness value of hardness values measured at intervals of 0.5 mm from a point located at 0.5 mm directly below a surface of a specimen to a point located at 0.5 mm directly below a back surface based on an arbitrary line perpendicular to a thickness cross section of the steel strip is 20 Hv or less” [claim 5] as recited in the instant claims. 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. Therefore, it is expected that the alloy of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (see compositional analysis above) and b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (see microstructure analysis above). 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).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0371590 A1 of Yu (US’590).
Regarding claims 1-5, US 2018/0371590 A1 of Yu (US’590) teaches [0001] “low-yield-ratio type, high-strength steel and a manufacturing method therefor, and more particularly, to low-yield-ratio type, high-strength steel that is appropriate for use as steel for construction due to a low yield ratio and high tensile strength” 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. 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. (US’590 abstract, [0001], [0008]-[0014], [0016]-[0074], Table 1, 2, 3).
The prior art is silent regarding the recited [Relational Expression 1] and its range of instant claim 1. However, as the prior art discloses a composition wherein the claimed ranges of the various elements of the instant alloy overlap or lie inside the ranges of various elements of the alloy of the prior art as shown above, the ranges of the formulaic expression of the instant claims would also overlap or lie inside the values of the prior art resulting from the instant formulaic expressions. 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.
The prior art teaches [0060] “The refined structure of the steel according to the present disclosure may include bainitic ferrite and granular bainite in a primary phase and include M-A (martensiteaustenite constituent) in a secondary phase.” [0064] “In this case, in terms of an area fraction, the bainitic ferrite may be 80 to 95%, the granular bainite may be 5 to 20%, and the M-A may be 3% or less (including 0%).” The prior art does not require the presence of pearlite or carbide thereby reading on the instant recited microstructure and the ranges of the various phases.
The prior art teaches [0072] “The steel according to the present disclosure may have a thickness of 60 mm or less.” thereby reading on the recited thickness of the instant claim 1 and claim 2.
Although the prior art teaches [0071] “The steel according to the present disclosure may have a yield ratio of 0.85 or less and may ensure tensile strength of 800 MPa or more and, thus, the steel may be used as steel for construction, or the like.”, the prior art is silent regarding its alloy having the properties of a) “a product (YSxT-El) of a yield strength and an elongation of the steel strip is 16,000 MPa·% or more” [claim 1] and b) “a difference between an average hardness value and a maximum hardness value of hardness values measured at intervals of 0.5 mm from a point located at 0.5 mm directly below a surface of a specimen to a point located at 0.5 mm directly below a back surface based on an arbitrary line perpendicular to a thickness cross section of the steel strip is 20 Hv or less” [claim 5] as recited in the instant claims. 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. Therefore, it is expected that the alloy of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (see compositional analysis above) and b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (see microstructure analysis above). 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).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments indicating that the terms “strip” and “plate” are interchangeable, Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that Applicant cited EP3653736B1 in support of this interchangeability. However, the EP document indicates “[0020] The hot-rolled steel strip according to the present invention may be of any desired thickness, such as less than 1 mm, 1 mm or more, 2 mm or less, 3 mm or less, 4 mm or less, 5 mm or less, 6 mm or less, or more than 6 mm. The hot-rolled steel strip according to the present invention is namely particularly, but not exclusively, suitable for applications requiring a thinner gauge steel, i.e. steel having a thickness of 6 mm or less. Due to the high impact strength of this steel, it is also possible to use strips having a thickness over 6 mm, normally up to 12 mm and even up to 16 mm, but down coiling may then be difficult. Typically, when the thickness of the hot-rolled steel strip is 6 mm or less and the cooling rate is very high (i.e. at least 30 °C/s), the amount of martensite in the steel increases. When the thickness of the hot-rolled steel strip is greater than 6 mm and the cooling rate is not very high, the amount of martensite decreases and the amount of bainite increases, and the bainite is more and more of the granular type.” Hence, the EP document provides a basis for it being its own lexicographer. MPEP § 2173.05 (a) III provides that TERMS USED CONTRARY TO THEIR ORDINARY MEANING MUST BE CLEARLY REDEFINED IN THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("While we have held many times that a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning," in such a situation the written description must clearly redefine a claim term "so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term."); Hormone Research Foundation Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 15 USPQ2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, when there is more than one meaning for a term, it is incumbent upon applicant to make clear which meaning is being relied upon to claim the invention. Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate. It is appropriate to compare the meaning of terms given in technical dictionaries in order to ascertain the accepted meaning of a term in the art. In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 170 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 2111.01.
However, this is not the case in the instant application. Instant application had used the art accepted term “plate” which is consistent with the disclosed product having a thickness of 10 mm or more. However, instant disclosure and claims were amended to replace the term “plate” with the term “strip” which conveys a different meaning and Applicant has not previously defined or redefined this term and its meaning. Therefore, the objections and rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 regarding the rejections a) Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/111702 A1 via its US English equivalent US 2022/0010399 A1 of Kim (US’399) and b) Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0371590 A1 of Yu (US’590) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the Applicant has alleged that there exists differences between the processing of the product of the prior art and that of the instant claims and therefore the prior art would not yield the recited limitation “a product (YSxT-El) of a yield strength and an elongation of the steel strip is 16,000 MPa·% or more” of claim 1.
However, the rejection has the basis of it is expected that the alloy of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (see compositional analysis above) and b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (see microstructure analysis above). In other words, 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 claimed and the prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure as well as composition, one skilled in the art would expect them to have similar properties. This is proved by Applicant’s own data in the instant specification which indicates that the recited feature is always exhibited in a product abiding by the compositional and microstructural specifications. 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).
With respect to the arguments about the criticality of the Relational Expression 1 and its range, Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 716.02(d). 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). See MPEP § 716.02(d) II. However, there is no data in the instant specification that clearly demonstrates the criticality of the claimed range and therefore the claimed range is deemed obvious over the prior art teachings.
As noted above, the prior art renders the instant claims obvious. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rebuttal evidence and arguments can be presented in the specification, In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995), by counsel, In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 299, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995), or by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, e.g., Soni, 54 F.3d at 750, 34 USPQ2d at 1687; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1474, 223 USPQ 785, 789-90 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2145. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. See MPEP § 2145 I.
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights