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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment filed November 6, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 4-8 and 22-25 are canceled, claims 1, 3, 9-16 and 18 are withdrawn, and claims 2, 17, 19-21, 26 and new claim 27 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 3, 9-16 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 2, 2025. It is noted that claim 2 has been amended to make a method claim grouped with elected Group II, with claim 17.
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 2, 17, 19-21 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka (US 2015/0210144) in view of Japan 2000-290536 (hereinafter ‘536) and Koito et al (US 2019/0264065).
Claim 17, 26: Ishioka provides an antifogging method for treating a substrate (note 0006-0007, 0126 with applying an antifogging film to the substrate). The method includes a step of cleaning the substrate to be coated with antifogging agent where the process can include using a cleaning liquid such as water (note cerium oxide polish/wash of a glass substrate, followed by cerium oxide washed off with pure water, so a washing with water provided, where this is then dried, indicating that the water is liquid or at least predictably and acceptably provided as liquid, followed by coating/application of the antifogging film) (note 0146). There is provided an antifogging agent composition (water absorbing antifogging film composition) (note 0126) that can be comprising silica particles (note 0104-0109), a binder compound comprising an epoxy resin (water absorbing resin) (note 0064, 0074, 0078 understood to meet applicant’s requirements of an epoxy binder compound), a silane coupling agent (note 0104, 0114, 0117-0118) and a liquid medium (note solvent 0128-0129). The method includes applying the antifogging agent compound to the cleaned substrate to form a coating film, and drying the coating film (note 0126, 0057-0059, 0062 where it is described that a single coating can be applied to the substrate to form the water absorbing antifogging film, where the water absorbing antifogging film may be comprised of a single layer and note figure 2 showing the water absorbing antifogging film 4 directly on the substrate/glass 2, where the film can be preferably only one layer from a viewpoint of water absorbing property). The substrate can be glass and/or plastic for example (note 0017-0019, substrate as a vehicle windshield of window glass, which can be glass or plastic, where the plastic can be polycarbonate), and can be used for an automobile (vehicle) (note 0013, 0017). Ishioka does not list any required amount of surfactant for the antifogging agent compound, and therefore it is understood that no surfactant is required to be present (meeting the requirements of claim 17 and 26).
As to the application directly to the substrate/inner surface after cleaning, since Ishioka indicates the substrate can be cleaned before coating as described above, and that a single layer of water absorbing antifogging film can be coated to form a single layer water absorbing antifogging film, the application of the single water absorbing antifogging film directly on the cleaned substrate would be understood to be predictably acceptable.
(A) As to the silane coupling agent having a polyether group, Ishioka generally provides for a silane coupling agent (note 0017-0018), and notes the coupling agent acts to improve adhesiveness between the coating layer (water absorbing antifogging film) and the substrate window glass (note 0114). ‘536 teaches providing a dispersion of organic polymer, colloidal silica and a silane coupling agent for forming a coating (note the abstract). It is described to use the silane coupling agent as a polyether modified silane coupling agent (note the abstract), where it is indicated that the coupling agent acts to improve flexibility and adhesion to the substrate, etc. (note page 3, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishioka to use a polyether modified silane coupling agent (silane coupling agent with a polyether group) included in the antifogging agent composition as suggested by ‘536 with an expectation of providing a desirable adhesion, since Ishioka provides an antifogging composition with silica particles, epoxy, silane coupling agent and solvent, and ‘536 indicates that a silane coupling agent used in a similar composition can be a polyether modified silane coupling agent to help adhere the composition to the substrate.
(B) Ishioka does not specifically say to provide the application of the agent onto an inner surface of a lens included in a vehicular lamp structure to form the coating film, however,
Koito describes providing an anti-fogging coating layer including silica particles (note 0059-0060) by applying a coating composition/agent of the material and drying to form a coating layer on a base material/substrate (note 0194-0197), where the base material can be glass or resins/polymer, such as polycarbonate (0184-0186), where the anti-fogging protection can be provided to materials such as lens, of window glass, mirrors or light of automobiles (note 0190), where, specifically the light can have a lens for protecting the automobile/vehicle light (lamp), noting that glass or plastic can be desired to be treated for the light (note 0191-0192), where it is described, for example, to coat the inner surface of a headlight lens or taillight lens with the antifogging coating composition and drying leaving a coating film (note 0766-0773).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishioka in view of ‘536 to specifically apply and dry the antifogging agent/composition to an inner surface of a lens included in a vehicular lamp structure as suggested by Koito with an expectation of providing a further desirable antifogging protection on lens material as well, since Ishioka provides an antifogging composition with silica particles that can be provided on glass or polymer of window glass for vehicles, and Koito teaches that similar such compositions for antifogging can be provided on glass or resin such as polycarbonate in the form of lens, window glass for automobiles/vehicles and also on the inner surface of the lens in a vehicle lamp (light) structure such as headlights or taillights. Furthermore, when providing the antifogging agent to the inner surface of the lens included in a vehicular lamp structure, the cleaning step including using water would also be provided this inner surface before application, since Ishioka indicates to clean the surface on which the material to be applied before application, which here would be the inner surface.
Claim 2: when providing the binder compound of epoxy as discussed for claim 17, this can be considered the “binder compound” and thus this would be just the epoxy compound as claimed.
Claims 19-20, as to the relative amounts of the silane coupling agent, the binder compound and silica particles, Ishioka provides that the silica particles (organic filler) can be provided in a relative amount of filler of 1-20 parts by mass to 100 parts of total of main agent (which can be the epoxy compound, note 0077, 0079) and curing agent (note 0108). Further in Ishioka, the amount of curing agent is preferably 2-20 mass relative to 100 mass of the epoxy compound (note 0074-0076, 0078, 0080, 0098), and the amount of silica parts to epoxy compound would overlap with that claimed, and it would have been obvious to optimize this amount, giving a value in the claimed range. Furthermore, the silane coupling agent in Ishioka would be 0.5-20 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of total mass of main agent and curing agent (note 0119, noting the amount of epoxy compound that would be included as discussed above). This would give the amount of silane coupling agent to epoxy compound that would overlap with that claimed, and it would have been obvious to optimize this amount, giving a value in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 21: Ishioka would further provide that the antifogging agent composition can contain nickel dibutyl dithiocarbamate, which would be a known nickel (metal) chelate (note 0121-0122).
Claim 27: as to the base material of the inner surface of the lens as polycarbonate, Ishioka indicates that the substrate (window glass 2) can be plastic, and describes as the plastic a polycarbonate based resin such as polyphenylene carbonate can be used (note 0019-0020). Koito, which indicates the coating of the inner surface of a lens as the substrate/base material as discussed for claim 17 above, provides that the substrate/base material can be plastics such as polycarbonate (note 0184, 0186), and therefore it would be suggested that a polycarbonate would be predictably and acceptably used as the base material of the inner surface of the lens, and since Ishioka shows cleaning the base material before application of the coating, it would have been suggested to provide such cleaning for polycarbonate as well, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results.
The rejection of claims 2, 17, 19-21 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 2014-054734 (hereinafter ‘734) in view of Japan 2000-290536 (hereinafter ‘536), Koito et al (US 2019/0264065) and EITHER Ishioka (US 2015/0210144) OR Karunakaran et al (US 2017/0204313) is withdrawn in view of the amendment of November 6, 2025 changing the scope of the claims.
Note that Katsuno et al (US 2019/0161603) notes nickel dibutyl dithiocarbamate as a nickel chelate (note 0145). Note that Kubota et al (US 2003/0130310) notes dioctyl sodium sulforsuccinate as a sulfosuccinate ester salt (note 0036). PubChem “trioctyl phosphate” notes that tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate is a synonym of this material (note page 1).
Aikawa et al (US 6435702) also notes providing antifogging coating on the inner surface of a lens of a vehicle lamp structure (note abstract, column 1, lines 40-55).
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 2, 17, 19-21 and 26-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/843,025 (reference application, hereinafter ‘025) in view of Ishioka (US 2015/0210144). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘025 provides, as desired by present claims 17, 2, 26, an antifogging method for a vehicular lamp structure comprising a step of applying an antifogging agent to an inner surface of a lens provided in a vehicular lamp structure to form a coating film and drying the coating film (note claim 11), where the agent can comprise silica particles, a binder compound that can be an epoxy compound (note claims 1, 2) and also a silane coupling agent having a polyether group (note claim 8), and no surfactant is required (note claim 1) and while the claims do not specifically teach that a liquid medium is also present, when looking to the specification to see what would be understood by applying the agent (as is acceptable), it is indicted that liquid medium would also be present for application (note 0140 of the specification of ‘025), and thus it would be expected that the agent would also predictably and acceptably contain liquid medium. Further as to applying the antifogging agent directly onto the inner surface of the lens to form a single layer coating film and drying to form a single layer antifogging film, this would be suggested by claim 11 of ‘025 since the film is applied to the inner surface of the lens to form a coating film, and no intervening coating is required or other layers required, and the dried to form a coating film (so the single layer applied can be dried). As to the cleaning of an inner surface of the lens with water, for example, before applying the coating to this surface,
Ishioka provides an antifogging method for treating a substrate (note 0006-0007, 0126 with applying an antifogging film to the substrate). The method includes a step of cleaning the substrate to be coated with antifogging agent where the process can include using a cleaning liquid such as water (note cerium oxide polish/wash of a glass substrate, followed by cerium oxide washed off with pure water, so a washing with water provided, where this is then dried, indicating that the water is liquid or at least predictably and acceptably provided as liquid, followed by coating/application of the antifogging film) (note 0146). There is provided an antifogging agent composition (water absorbing antifogging film composition) (note 0126) that can be comprising silica particles (note 0104-0109), a binder compound comprising an epoxy resin (water absorbing resin) (note 0064, 0074, 0078 understood to meet applicant’s requirements of an epoxy binder compound), a silane coupling agent (note 0104, 0114, 0117-0118) and a liquid medium (note solvent 0128-0129). The method includes applying the antifogging agent compound to the cleaned substrate to form a coating film, and drying the coating film (note 0126, 0057-0059, 0062 where it is described that a single coating can be applied to the substrate to form the water absorbing antifogging film, where the water absorbing antifogging film may be comprised of a single layer and note figure 2 showing the water absorbing antifogging film 4 directly on the substrate/glass 2, where the film can be preferably only one layer from a viewpoint of water absorbing property). The substrate can be glass and/or plastic for example (note 0017-0019, substrate as a vehicle windshield of window glass, which can be glass or plastic, where the plastic can be polycarbonate), and can be used for an automobile (vehicle) (note 0013, 0017). Ishioka does not list any required amount of surfactant for the antifogging agent compound, and therefore it is understood that no surfactant is required to be present (meeting the requirements of claim 17 and 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention to modify ‘025 to provide cleaning the substrate with liquid water before applying the antifogging agent on the cleaned surface of the substrate with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘025 is applying an antifogging composition, and Ishioka indicates that it would be conventional when applying such compositions to provide cleaning the substrate with liquid water before applying the antifogging agent on the cleaned surface of the substrate. As to present claims 19, 20: this is concerned with the concentration of the various materials listed, and these would have been obvious to determine, where as indicated in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” As to present claim 21: this is suggested by claims 9, 10 of ‘025, where when looking to the specification to see what would be understood by metal catalyst (as is acceptable), it is indicted that materials the same as that indicated by applicant as metal chelates would be used (note 0110 of ‘025). Note as well, Ishioka suggests the metal chelate can be used (note 0121-0122). As to claim 27, this is suggested by Ishioka, which indicates how substrate/base material can be glass or plastic, where the plastic can be polycarbonate material (note 0018-0019), where since the glass/windshield would be see through it would be understood to be also acceptable for the lens.
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 November 6, 2025 have been fully considered.
(A) Note the adjustment to the 35 USC 103 rejections due to the amendments to the claims.
(B) As to the rejection using ‘734 as the primary reference, this has been removed due to the amendments changing the scope of the claims.
(C) As to the rejection using Ishioka as the primary reference, applicant argues that Ishioka does not have the specific silane coupling agent using a polyether group and the application on the inner surface of a lens included in a vehicular lamp. It is argued that the problem addressed by the present invention is preventing deterioration in antifog performance caused by volatile components generated in the closed system of vehicle lamp structure, where with the use of the silane coupling agent having polyether groups antifogging properties are maintained, where Ishioka, ‘536 and Koito do not provide any recognition of the specific problem above, and one would not predict the results, and Ishioka does not describe use for an inner surface of a vehicular lamp structure and ‘536 gives no reason to improve adherence of an antifogging film on such a structure, so the present claims cannot be considered obvious.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. Ishioka would suggest claimed features as discussed above, including the single layer directly on the surface of the substrate and drying to form a single layer antifogging film, and suggests use of a silane coupling agent, where ‘536 has been provided as to the suggestion to use a silane coupling agent with a polyether group, indicated as giving benefits of improved adhesion and flexibility, and as to the substrate of an inner surface of an vehicular lamp structure, Koito has been cited as to the suggestion to use such a substrate as discussed in the rejection above. As to the problem addressed by applicant of preventing deterioration of anti-fog performance caused by volatile components generated in a vehicle lamp structure, the is also the general desire to apply antifogging agent to an inner surface of a lens of vehicle lamp structures, as described by Koito. Reason to modify a reference do not have to be for the same purpose as desired by applicant. Here, for example, Ishioka is providing an antifogging coating film that can be applied to a glass/plastic substate (even on an inner side of a system (vehicle interior side) note 0013) and provides use of a silane coupling agent (note 0117), and to provide antifogging protection on such substrate (and even when the substrate is an inner surface of a lens of a vehicle lamp structure as suggested by Koito) it would be desired to have the film actually adhere to the substrate to give the desired antifogging (note 0114 of Ishioka), and ‘536 provides a specific silane coupling agent that acts to improve flexibility and adhesion (where glass and organic substrates can be used), thus gives a suggested silane coupling agent to use for those benefits. ‘536 also notes benefits of stabilizing the coating dispersion with the polyether modified silane coupling agent (note page 3, translation). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As to the use of Koito, Ishioka describes a substrate of window glass (note 0013), where Koito describes that along with window glass, it is also desired to apply antifogging coatings to substrates that include inner surfaces of vehicle lamps, and thus gives a suggested further substrate to use for the antifogging coating of Ishioka to give a desirable antifogging protection with an expectation of predictable such antifogging protection. Again, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, the motivation to provide the features of the claimed invention would be suggested from the prior art, and all features claimed would be suggested including the use of a substrate of an inner surface of a lens of a vehicular lamp structure.
Further as to the argument that the use of the silane coupling agent with a polyether group gives advantageous results, as discussed above, the use of the silane coupling agent with a polyether group of ‘536 would also suggest advantageous results because it is indicated as giving improved adhesion and flexibility and thus already gives the suggestion of benefits. Note Ex parte Obiaya as discussed above. Additionally, it is noted, for example, that Comparative examples 2-7 use silane coupling agent of KBM coupling agents in an amount of 5 parts by mass with ST-OUP silica particles, while the Inventive examples use 10 parts by mass of the coupling agent (and only a single coupling agent material) with ST-OUP particles, where the only use of 5 parts by mass is with another type of silica particles, where it is not clarified if there is an effect by the different amount of coupling agent. Comparative example 1 had no silane coupling agent, where use of the silane coupling agent was already suggested by Ishioka. Also, all substates were polycarbonate washed with isopropyl alcohol, and it is not clarified if the substrate/washing liquid affects the test results. The present claim 17, for example, allows any silane coupling agent with a polyether group in any amount, more substrates that that tested, different cleaning than that tested, etc. for example. Therefore, a showing commensurate in scope to what is claimed has not been made. Note MPEP 716.02(d).
(D) As to the obviousness type provisional double patenting rejection using ‘025, it is argued that it is improper to rely on the teaching in claims 2, 8 directed to a composition, rather than the method, where there was a restriction requirement in the present case, and only claims 1 and 11 should be relied on. It was also argued that after a unity of invention requirement in ‘025, claim 11 was withdrawn. It was also argued that claim 17 has various features such as the cleaning and then applying and the lack of surfactant would not have been obvious from claim 11, claim 1.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, it is the Examiner’s position that looking to the composition claims of ‘025 as well as the method claims 11-12 of ‘025 is proper to see what is covered. At the very least, claim 11 of ‘025 specifically indicates that the composition of claim 1 is part of the method claim 11. Furthermore, claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1, and further clarify, therefore, what is included by claim 1 (since claim 1 has to allow all options of the dependent claims, or the dependent claims would be not further limiting). Note again that claim 1 has to be inclusive of all features in the dependent claims. Further, while in ‘025, claim 11 was withdrawn from examination, it is still present in the application, and not canceled, and therefore can be used in a double patenting rejection. As to the features of claim 17 being suggested, it is the Examiner’s position that all features of claim 17 would have been suggested from ‘025 and Ishioka, as discussed in the rejection above, where Ishioka provides the suggestion of the cleaning features, and as claims 1, 11 do not require surfactant, it is understood that the amount present can be zero. Therefore, the provisional rejections are proper.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718