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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on 2/11/2026, overcomes the rejections of record, however, the new grounds of rejection as set forth below are necessitated by applicants’ amendment and therefore, the following action is Final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Status of the application
3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9-12, 14-24 are pending in this office action.
Claims 2,4,7,8, 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 14-24 are new.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-12, 14-24 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 18 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.
Claim 18 claims “the weight ratio between phosphoric acid with 54% P2O5 and calcium carbonate is 2.5 for producing dicalcium phosphate”. There is no support in the specification for the ratio “ 2.5 for producing dicalcium phosphate”. Applicants’ specification recites the ratio “ 2.5 for producing monocalcium phosphate” (in PGPUB [0063]). Examiner is addressing claim 18 considering the ratio “ 2.5 for producing monocalcium phosphate”. Applicants are advised to amend claim 18 to overcome the 112 First paragraph rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 18 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.
8. Claim 18 recites “ the weight ratio between phosphoric acid with 54% P2O5 and calcium carbonate is 2.5 for producing dicalcium phosphate”. It seems like it should be monocalcium phosphate . It is the examiners opinion that it will be 2.5 for monocalcium phosphate as discussed below when addressing claims 17, 18 below (See item # 23).
Also, applicants specification recites 2.5 for monocalcium phosphate and 1.3 for dicalcium phosphate (in PGPUB [0063]).
In brief , considering MW of calcium carbonate and phosphoric acid (converting to 54% P2O5), it is understood from the reaction that 1:1 H3PO4 :CaCO3 which is 130.00 (H3PO4) /100.09 (CaCO3) = 1.3 (about) for dicalcium phosphate [CaCO3 + H3PO4 = CaHPO4 (Dicalcium phosphate) + H2O + CO2].
For monocalcium phosphate, the known reaction is CaCO3 + 2H3PO4= Ca(H2PO4)2 + H2O + CO2 [i.e. 2:1 H3PO4 :CaCO3 ] ((See detailed under item # 23). Therefore, the ratio of phosphoric acid and CaCO3 will be double than dicalcium phosphate which will be about 2.5.
Applicants are advised to amend claim 18 to overcome the 112 second paragraph rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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 no obviousness.
11. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams US 2003/0003203 A1 in view of Nielsson et al. USPN 3467495 in view of William et al. USPN 3425823 (William et al. ‘823).
12. Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses that humates which is humic substance ( [0014]) is used as additive to make animal feed (at least in [0003], [0011], [0012] [0014], [0015]).
Williams et al. is silent about (a) the amended claim limitation of “dietary
phosphate raw material consisting essentially of calcium phosphate”.
Nielsson et al. discloses that phosphoric acid and limestone calcium carbonate (as calcium compound), CaO, to provide a reaction temperature of about 130-160 degree F (i.e. 54.4 degree C- 71.1 degree C) to make monocalcium phosphate or di calcium phosphate etc. which type of calcium phosphate depends on the mole ratio of CaO and P2O5 (from phosphoric acid) ( at least in col 3 lines 10-12, 42-55, col 4 lines 1-10 and cols 6,7 in examples I, II, III, IV ).
Therefore, it meets claim limitation of “dietary phosphate raw material consisting essentially of calcium phosphate and a humic substance”.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed
invention would have been motivated to modify Williams et al. with the teachings of Nielsson et al. to perform the disclosed method steps as disclosed by Nielsson et al. ( at least in col 3 lines 10-12, 42-55, col 4 lines 1-10 and cols 6,7 in examples I, II, III, IV ) in order to make calcium mono phosphate, calcium diphosphate etc. which is the phosphate source as nutritional additives in animal feed composition.
Williams et al. is silent about wherein the humic substance is inserted in calcium phosphate” as claimed in independent amended claim 1.
Williams et al. ‘823 discloses that leonardite (i.e. humic substance) can be mixed with alkali metal hydroxide in water and then allowing salt forming reaction at room temperature or at higher temperature, in order to make preferred form of sodium humate salt as more pure concentrated extracted form of humate salt (col 7 lines 45-75, col 8 lines 1-10).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Williams humic substance to include the teaching of William '823 concentrated extract form of sodium salt of humic acid as sodium humate by alkali
extraction to be used as sodium humate salt which is water soluble ( col 8 lines 5-7) in the animal feed composition.
Therefore, both the calcium phosphate and extracted humate as sodium or respective salt form can be performed under alkaline extraction and reaction condition. One of ordinary skill in the art can introduce prepared extracted humate salt from humic substance as aqueous solution or dispersion condition to mix with the formed calcium phosphate made from calcium hydroxide and phosphoric acid in order to allow proper mixing with the absorption of humate salt solution or dispersion form in order to make an integrated salt consisting essentially of humate as humic substance and calcium phosphate as claimed in claim 1.
13. Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Nielsson et al. disclosed method steps as disclosed by Nielsson et al. ( at least in col 3 lines 10-12, 42-55, col 4 lines 1-10 and cols 6,7 in examples I, II, III, IV ) in order to make calcium mono phosphate, calcium diphosphate etc. which is the phosphate source as nutritional additives in animal feed composition.
14. Regarding claim 5, Williams et al. ‘823 discloses that leonardite (i.e. humic substance) can be mixed with alkali metal hydroxide in water and then allowing salt forming reaction at room temperature or at higher temperature, in order to make preferred form of sodium humate salt as more pure concentrated extracted form of humate salt (col 7 lines 45-75, col 8 lines 1-10).
15. Regarding claim 11, Williams discloses that the blended, granulated, or powdered form of high-quality humic substance is used as feed additive ([0015]) which provides an improved feed digestibility and utilization ([0022]) and improves animal waste (manure) quality for cropland application and decrease offensive fecal odor and reduce the excretion of potentially polluting nitrogenous compounds ([0023]).
16. Regarding claim 12, therefore, the use of high-quality humic substance, used as feed additive ([0015]) with multi-benefits ([0022], [0023]) reads on claim limitation of "a step of incorporating the dietary raw material according to claim 1 in the ration of the animal" as claimed in claim 12.
17. Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams US 2003/0003203 A1 in view of Nielsson et al. USPN 3467495 in view of William et al. USPN 3425823 (William et al. ‘823) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Zhao et al. CN 1240593 A and in view of Bart et al. PN 2843492 A.
18. Regarding claims 14, 15, Williams discloses that the animal feed composition contains humic substance e.g. humic acid can be 0.5 to 0.75% by weight in the animal feed composition ( at least in claims 1, 8, 10).
However, Williams et al is silent about the claim limitation of claimed range amounts of humic acid ‘relative to the weight of the dietary phosphate raw material’ as claimed in claims 14 and 15.
Zhao et al. discloses that feed composition can contain nutritional additives which include humate from 0.2 -0.8 wt.% (at least in claim 1).
Bart et al. discloses that an animal feed material contains calcium phosphate in an amount from 2-20wt.% calcium phosphate (at least in claim 1 of Bart et al.).
Therefore, for example, if we consider at least one value, 0.2 wt.% humate and 20 wt.% calcium phosphate, it is 0.8/20.8 x100= 3.846 % humate by weight and 20/20.8 x100 = 96.15 % by weight calcium phosphate relative to the weight of the dietary phosphate raw material which dietary phosphate consisting essentially of humate and calcium phosphate as claimed in independent claim 1. Therefore, the ratio is overlapping the claimed range amounts of claims 14,15. It shows prima facie case of obviousness according to MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Williams with the teachings of William et al. to include the teaching of Zhao et al. to consider the disclosed range amount of humic acid salt (at least in claim 1 of Zhao et al.) and also to consider the teaching of Bart et al. to consider calcium phosphate in an amount from 2-20wt.% calcium phosphate (at least in claim 1 of Bart et al.) to be considered in an animal feed which will meet the claimed amount of these two components in order to provide respective nutritional supplements in the diet composition.
19. Claims 6, 9, 10, 16-18, 21, 22, 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams US 2003/0003203 A1 in view of William et al. USPN 3425823 (William et al. ‘823) in view of Nielsson et al. USPN 3467495 and as evidenced by Zou et al. CN 101774854 A.
20. Regarding claims 6, 9, 10, 21, 22, Williams discloses that humates which is humic substance ( [0014]) is used as additive to make animal feed (at least in [0003], [0011], [0012] [0014], [0015]). Therefore, it meets claim limitation of "humic substance”.
Williams et al. is silent about
(a) the amended claim limitation of “dietary phosphate raw material consisting essentially of calcium phosphate and a humic substance , wherein the humic substance is inserted in calcium phosphate” as claimed in independent amended “calcium phosphate” as claimed in claim 6 and
(b) the method steps to prepare calcium phosphate from calcium source and phosphoric acid as claimed in claims 6, 10 and
(c ) ‘humic source’ is sodium humate which is inserted as claimed in claim 5 and humic substrate is extracted from leonardite as claimed in claim 9 and
(d ) the method steps to make preparing a dispersion or aqueous solution of humic substance as claimed in claims 6, 10.
With respect to (a) and (b ), Nielsson et al. discloses that phosphoric acid and limestone calcium carbonate (as calcium compound), CaO, to provide a reaction temperature of about 130-160 degree F (i.e. 54.4 degree C- 71.1 degree C) to make monocalcium phosphate or di calcium phosphate etc. which type of calcium phosphate depends on the mole ratio of CaO and P2O5 (from phosphoric acid) ( at least in col 3 lines 10-12, 42-55, col 4 lines 1-10 and cols 6,7 in examples I, II, III, IV ). Therefore, it meets claims 6, 10.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Williams et al. with the teachings of Nielsson et al. to perform the disclosed method steps as disclosed by Nielsson et al. ( at least in col 3 lines 10-12, 42-55, col 4 lines 1-10 and cols 6,7 in examples I, II, III, IV ) in order to make calcium mono phosphate, calcium diphosphate etc. which is the phosphate source as nutritional additives in animal feed composition.
This meets the claim limitation of method steps of claim 6 which is a method of manufacturing a dietary raw material phosphate for animal nutrition as claimed in claim 6.
With respect to (c), (d) , Williams et al. ‘823 discloses that leonardite (i.e. humic substance) can be mixed with alkali metal hydroxide in water and then allowing salt forming reaction at room temperature or at higher temperature, in order to make preferred form of sodium humate salt as more pure concentrated extracted form of humate salt (col 7 lines 45-75, col 8 lines 1-10). Therefore, Williams et al. discloses extracted form of sodium humate salt e.g. sodium leonardite (col 7 lines 55-57) which is a source of humic acid ( col 7 lines 6-7) and is converted to sodium humate (col 8 lines 10-12) having requisite water solubility ( col 8 lines 5-7) which is the source of valuable minerals in pellet form and this pellet has shock improving property (col 7 lines 62-64) and suitable to be used as shock improving agent when used in animal feed composition
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Williams ([0014] e.g. Leonardite as humic substance) to include the teaching of William '823 to consider extracted form of preferred sodium humate salt having requisite water solubility ( col 8 lines 5-7) which is the source of valuable minerals in pellet form and this pellet has shock improving property (col 7 lines 62-64) and suitable to be used as shock improving agent when used in animal feed composition.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also have been motivated to William in view of Nielsson et al. with the teaching of Williams ‘823 to consider the prepared dispersion or aqueous solution containing the humic substance to mix with phosphoric acid in order to perform the conversion of phosphoric acid to make calcium phosphate in presence of humic substance with a reasonable expectation of success to allow humic substance e.g. sodium humate in dispersed form as claimed in claim 6. It is also to be noted that the it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider and optimize the weight ratio between phosphoric acid and the source of calcium to have desired reaction product calcium phosphate.
Therefore, it meets the claim limitation of “preparing a dispersion or aqueous solution containing humic substance” as claimed in claim 6. It also meets the claim limitation of “ wherein the humic substance is extracted from leonardite” as claimed in claim 9.
Regarding the claim limitation of “wherein the humic substance is inserted in calcium phosphate” and the step of “ mixing the dispersion or aqueous solution containing the humic substance to be dispersed in the produced calcium phosphate” as claimed in claim 6, sodium humate is known water soluble compound (William ‘823 col 8 lines 5-7) . Therefore, they can be mixed together to be integrated and it meets “wherein the humic substance is dispersed in calcium phosphate” as claimed in claim 6.
It is also to be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ‘mix salts of humic acid materials” preferably sodium leonardite in ‘dispersed/solution form’, as disclosed by Williams et al. ‘823 ( col 7 lines 55-57) with Nielsson’s calcium phosphate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve beneficial results from humates as feed supplement and better result as pellet shock improving agent (Williams et al. ‘823, col 7 lines 60-65) , in combination with calcium mono phosphate, calcium diphosphate etc. which is the phosphate source as nutritional additives (Nielsson et al. at least in cols 6,7 in examples I, II, III, IV ) in combination, to make nutritionally enriched animal feed composition which provides a complex with sodium humate (Leonardite ) (in Williams col 7 lines 56-58) because suspension containing humic substance when dispersed, forms an organo-mineral complex as is understood from the teaching of Williams ‘203 ([0011], [0012] e.g. "release organic phosphates") and is also evidenced by Zou et al. (Abstract; e.g. i.e. organic phosphate complex is humic calcium phosphate as evidenced by Zou et al.).
It is also to be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ‘mix salts of humic acid materials” preferably sodium leonardite in ‘dispersed/solution form’, as disclosed by Williams et al. ‘823 ( col 7 lines 55-57) with Nielsson’s calcium phosphate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a nutritionally additive to make animal feed (at least in [0003], [0014]). It is known that Leonardite is an organo-mineral complex as is understood from the teaching of Williams ([0011], [0012] e.g. "release organic phosphates").
Therefore, the reaction product will comprise humic substance and calcium phosphate as a dispersion/or aqueous solution as claimed in claim 6.
21. Regarding claim 16, Nielsson et al. discloses that calcium phosphate can be monocalcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate etc. (at least in Examples I-IV , col 6, col 7).
22. Regarding claim 17, 18, Nielsson et al. discloses that phosphoric acid can contain about 20% to 58% P2O5 (at least col 3 lines 10-12).
23. Regarding claims 17, 18, Nielsson et al. discloses the procedure to make dicalcium phosphate (at least in Examples II and III). It is known that calcium carbonate is equivalent to 1:1 release of CaO [CaCO3= CaO+ CO2). Nielsson et al. has considered CaO and P2O5 , in the disclosed Examples ( col 6, 7 and col 3 lines 10-12). However, in order to address specific claimed ratio weight ratio between phosphoric acid and calcium carbonate, as claimed in claims 17, 18, the calculation is presented below by considering all the reactions are well-known (Google):
It is to be noted that the disclosed ratio is between CaO to P2O5 mole ratio and this mole ratio can be varied to make desired mono or di calcium phosphate (at least in Examples I-III). However, claims 17-18 claims the ratio of phosphoric acid (54% P2O5) and dicalcium phosphate. Nielsson et al. also discloses that the concentration of phosphoric acid is from 28% to 80% H3PO4 (20% to 58% P2O5) (col 3 lines 10-12).
For 54% P2O5, if we consider 1.38 is the conversion factor, it is about 75% H3PO4.
Calculation: 1.38 conversion factor:
It is known that P2O5 +3H2O= 2H3PO4
Molar Mass of P2O5 141.94 g/mole
Molar Mass of H3PO4 is 98.00 g/mole
Molar mass of 2 moles of H3Po4 is 196.00 (2x98 g/mole).
Therefore, it is 196/141.94= 1.38.
Therefore, 54% P2O5 =1.38x54= 74.56% H3PO4.
Now, MW of CaCO3 = 100.09 g/mole.
MW of phosphoric acid is 97.995 g/mole
If 75% H3PO4, then 98 g (97.99) phosphoric acid (100%) will be 130 gm (100/75x98=130) contributed by 54% P2O5 in order to be equivalent to 98 g (i.e. 100%) H3PO4.
Therefore, it is understood from the reaction that 1:1 H3PO4 :CaCO3 which is 130.00 (H3PO4) /100.09 (CaCO3) = 1.3 (about) for dicalcium phosphate because the known reaction is CaCO3 + H3PO4 = CaHPO4 (Dicalcium phosphate) + H2O + CO2. Therefore, it meets claim 17.
Also, for monocalcium phosphate, the known reaction is CaCO3 + 2H3PO4= Ca(H2PO4)2 + H2O + CO2. Therefore, it is understood from the reaction that 2:1 H3PO4: CaCO3. Therefore, the ratio of phosphoric acid and CaCO3 will be double than dicalcium phosphate which will be about 2.5 to meet claim 18.
24. Regarding claim 22, claim 22 depends on claim 6. Therefore, the rejection made for claim 6 is applicable here. In brief, as discussed above for claim 6 that sodium humate is known water soluble compound as evidenced by Connor et al. ( col 2 line 94) and leonardite (i.e. humic substance) can be mixed with alkali metal hydroxide in water and then allowing salt forming reaction at room temperature or at higher temperature, in order to make preferred form of sodium humate salt as more pure concentrated extracted form of humate salt (col 7 lines 45-75, col 8 lines 1-10). Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to “pour humic substance” as sodium humate, which can be mixed into the phosphoric acid solution to form a mixture followed by the addition of calcium oxide to the mixture to perform the further steps at the disclosed temperature range as disclosed by Nielsson et al. which overlaps claimed range of claim 22.
25. Regarding claim 23, it is also to be noted that if we consider the disclosures above, the step of mixing is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the step of mixing by pouring the dispersion or aqueous solution containing humic substance onto calcium carbonate , calcium oxide or calcious hydroxide because both the preparation of humic substance and calcium compound with phosphoric acid are performed under similar reaction conditions (e.g. alkaline and temperature etc.).
26. Regarding claim 24, it is also to be noted that if we consider the disclosures above, the step of mixing with stirring is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the step of mixing with stirring the dispersion or aqueous solution containing humic substance onto calcium carbonate , calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve the integration and interactions between humic substance and calcium, phosphoric acid because of homogeneous mixing to make the desired organic complex formation with humate and calcium phosphate salt as discussed above.
27. Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams US 2003/0003203 A1 in view of Nielsson et al. USPN 3467495 in view of Williams et al. ‘823 and as evidenced by Zou et al. CN 101774854 A as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Zhao et al. CN 1240593 A and further in view of Bart et al. USPN 2843492 A.
28. Regarding claims 19, 20, Williams discloses that humic acid can be 0.05 to 0.5% by weight in the animal feed composition ( at least in claims 1-8, 10).
William is specifically silent about sodium humate and its amount.
Zhao et al. discloses that poultry feed composition can contain nutritional additives which include humate from 0.2 -0.8 wt.% (at least in claim 1).
Bart et al. discloses that an animal feed material contains calcium phosphate in an amount from 2-20wt.% calcium phosphate (at least in claim 1 of Bart et al.).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Williams with the teachings of Zhao et al. to consider the disclosed range amount of humic acid salt (at least in claim 1 of Zhao et al.) and also calcium phosphate in an amount from 2-20wt.% calcium phosphate (at least in claim 1 of Bart et al.) to be considered in an animal feed which will meet the claimed amount of these two components in order to provide respective nutritional supplements in the diet composition.
Response to arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered. Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the rejections of record. A new ground of rejection has been made due to amendment of independent claims 1, 6. Therefore, the rejection is made as final.
Examiner considered primary prior art by Williams et al. Examiner is addressing arguments made for Williams et al. and also few secondary prior arts which have been considered in this office action.
Examiner did not consider few previously used secondary prior arts and therefore, arguments made for those is considered as moot.
Examiner included few new secondary prior arts to address amended claim limitation of independent claims 1, 6 and addressed in detail in this office action above.
30. Arguments:
Williams et al.:
31. Applicants primarily argued that primary prior art by Williams et al. and secondary prior arts , in combination, fails to address the amended claim limitations of independent claims 1, 6.
In response, it is to be noted that claim 1 is product claim. Therefore, claims 1,3,5,11,12 have been considered in one group and rejected separately. However, the amendment of independent claim 1 can be considered as product -by-process and addressed above.
Therefore, examiner used other new secondary prior arts in combination with primary prior art by Williams et al. to address the new claims 14, 15 which depend on claim 1. Examiner also considered other new secondary prior arts in combination with primary prior art by Williams et al. to address amended independent method claim 6 and dependent claims depend on claim 6 with the respective new claims which depend on claim 6 also in this office action.
There are no further arguments. As mentioned above, a new ground of rejection has been made due to amendment of independent claims 1, 6. Therefore, the rejection is made as final.
Conclusion
32. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor Erik Kashnikow, can be reached on 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights