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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nailu, as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter from Claims 8 and 11. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasetyo et al. in view of Castrillon et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter from Claims 8 and 11. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalili et al. in view of Castrillon et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter from Claims 8 and 11. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Castrillon et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter from Claims 8 and 11. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lively et al. in view of Castrillon et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter from Claims 8 and 11. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Castrillon et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter from Claims 8 and 11. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. in view of Castrillon et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter from Claims 8 and 11. The rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant’s amendments have necessitated the adjusted and/or newly-laid rejections appearing below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Evaluation of CO2 adsorption capacity of electrospun carbon fibers with thermal and chemical activation” Kim et al. in view of NPL “CO2 and H2S Removal from CH4‑Rich Streams by Adsorption on Activated Carbons Modified with K2CO3, NaOH, or Fe2O3” Castrillon et al. Claim 1 requires “A polymer composite comprising: a polymer substrate”. Kim et al. discloses “In order to fabricate smooth nFs [polymeric nanofibers], PAN [polyacrylonitrile] (Mw 5,150,000 mol/g, Sigma-Aldrich; Seoul, Korea) and N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF, Daejung, Korea) were used as solute and solvent” [Page 2, Section “Preparation of PAN-Based Electrospun Fibers”].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the polymer substrate comprises a fibrous mat.”. Kim et al. discloses a fiber mat “We attribute this to the peripheral coating of the dense urea solution on the non-porous fiber mat.” [Page 4, Col. 2, Paragraph 3]. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows fibers crossing over each other in random directions, i.e. a mat.
Claim 1 further requires “activated carbon; and a carbonate salt, wherein the activated carbon is infused with the carbonate salt”. Kim et al. does not disclose active carbon infused with a carbonate salt.
Castrillon et al. is similarly directed to methods of removing CO2. Castrillon et al. discloses active carbon infused with a carbonate salt “Three commercial activated carbons produced by Donau Carbon GmbH (Germany), named as … Desorex K43-BG (impregnated with K2CO3) were studied in this work” [Page 9597, Section 2.1].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the polymer fibers of Kim et al. with the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 composite of Castrillon et al. because both materials are known to be effective at adsorbing CO2 (see title).
The motivation to have used the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 composite of Castrillon et al. in/on the polymeric fiber of Kim et al. is given by Castrillon et al. in at least Figure 3 [Page 9599] which shows the carbon infused with K2CO3 to be the best material at adsorbing CO2 at all pressures of the three materials studied.
Claim 1 further requires “and the activated carbon is dispersed throughout the polymer substrate”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have achieved the combination of the fibrous mat of Kim et al. with the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 of Castrillon et al. by dispersing the activated carbon throughout the fibrous mat by any means known in the art, for example, by dry mixing or by including the activated carbon with the solvent that the fibers of Kim et al. are spun from, although not limited to such methods. Furthermore it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the fibers of Kim et al. with the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. without dispersing the activated carbon throughout the fibers.
Claim 2 requires “the polymer substrate comprises a thermoset, a thermoplastic, or a thermoplastic elastomer.”. Kim et al. discloses polyacrylonitrile (“polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based fibers” [Page 45534, Paragraph 1]) which is understood to be a thermoplastic.
Claim 13 requires “the activated carbon is in powder form.”. Castrillon et al. does not explicitly disclose that the activated carbon is in powder form, however they do disclose a high BET surface area (from Table 3 [Page 9599] SBET of Desorex K43-BG = 1005 m2g-1) which is characteristic of fine powders. Furthermore even if the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. was not in powder form (no such concession is given) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ground the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. into a powder. This would have predictably increased the surface area of the activated carbon which is well known within the art to increase the rate of gas adsorption.
Claim 14 requires “the carbonate salt comprises potassium carbonate or sodium carbonate.”. Castrillon et al. discloses potassium carbonate (see Claim 1).
Claim 21 requires “A polymer composite comprising: a polymer substrate, wherein the polymer substrate comprises a fiber”. Kim et al. discloses “In order to fabricate smooth nFs [polymeric nanofibers], PAN [polyacrylonitrile] (Mw 5,150,000 mol/g, Sigma-Aldrich; Seoul, Korea) and N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF, Daejung, Korea) were used as solute and solvent” [Page 2, Section “Preparation of PAN-Based Electrospun Fibers”].
Claim 21 further requires “activated carbon; and a carbonate salt, wherein the activated carbon is infused with the carbonate salt”. Kim et al. does not disclose active carbon infused with a carbonate salt.
Castrillon et al. is similarly directed to methods of removing CO2. Castrillon et al. discloses active carbon infused with a carbonate salt “Three commercial activated carbons produced by Donau Carbon GmbH (Germany), named as … Desorex K43-BG (impregnated with K2CO3) were studied in this work” [Page 9597, Section 2.1].
Claim 21 further requires “and the activated carbon is adhered to a surface of the polymer substrate.”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have achieved the combination of the fibrous mat of Kim et al. with the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 of Castrillon et al. by adhering the activated carbon to the surface of the polymer by any means known in the art, for example, by dry mixing, although not limited to such method. Furthermore it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the fibers of Kim et al. with the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. without adhering the activated carbon to the surface of the polymer.
Claim 22 requires “the polymer substrate comprises a thermoset, a thermoplastic, or a thermoplastic elastomer.”. Kim et al. discloses polyacrylonitrile (“polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based fibers” [Page 45534, Paragraph 1]) which is understood to be a thermoplastic.
Claim 24 requires “the activated carbon is in powder form.”. Castrillon et al. does not explicitly disclose that the activated carbon is in powder form, however they do disclose a high BET surface area (from Table 3 [Page 9599] SBET of Desorex K43-BG = 1005 m2g-1) which is characteristic of fine powders. Furthermore even if the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. was not in powder form (no such concession is given) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ground the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. into a powder. This would have predictably increased the surface area of the activated carbon which is well known within the art to increase the rate of gas adsorption.
Claim 25 requires “the carbonate salt comprises potassium carbonate or sodium carbonate.”. Castrillon et al. discloses potassium carbonate (see Claim 21).
Claim 27 requires “A polymer composite comprising: a polymer substrate”. Kim et al. discloses “In order to fabricate smooth nFs [polymeric nanofibers], PAN [polyacrylonitrile] (Mw 5,150,000 mol/g, Sigma-Aldrich; Seoul, Korea) and N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF, Daejung, Korea) were used as solute and solvent” [Page 2, Section “Preparation of PAN-Based Electrospun Fibers”].
Claim 27 further requires “activated carbon; and a carbonate salt, wherein the activated carbon is infused with the carbonate salt”. Kim et al. does not disclose active carbon infused with a carbonate salt.
Castrillon et al. is similarly directed to methods of removing CO2. Castrillon et al. discloses active carbon infused with a carbonate salt “Three commercial activated carbons produced by Donau Carbon GmbH (Germany), named as … Desorex K43-BG (impregnated with K2CO3) were studied in this work” [Page 9597, Section 2.1].
Claim 27 further requires “the activated carbon is dispersed throughout the polymer substrate”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have achieved the combination of the fibrous mat of Kim et al. with the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 of Castrillon et al. by dispersing the activated carbon throughout the fibrous mat by any means known in the art, for example, by dry mixing or by including the activated carbon with the solvent that the fibers of Kim et al. are spun from, although not limited to such methods. Furthermore it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the fibers of Kim et al. with the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. without dispersing the activated carbon throughout the fibers.
Claim 27 further requires “and the carbonate salt comprises potassium carbonate or sodium carbonate.”. Castrillon et al. discloses potassium carbonate (see above).
Claim 28 requires “the polymer substrate comprises a thermoset, a thermoplastic, or a thermoplastic elastomer.”. Kim et al. discloses polyacrylonitrile (“polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based fibers” [Page 45534, Paragraph 1]) which is understood to be a thermoplastic.
Claim 31 requires “the activated carbon is in powder form.”. Castrillon et al. does not explicitly disclose that the activated carbon is in powder form, however they do disclose a high BET surface area (from Table 3 [Page 9599] SBET of Desorex K43-BG = 1005 m2g-1) which is characteristic of fine powders. Furthermore even if the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. was not in powder form (no such concession is given) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ground the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. into a powder. This would have predictably increased the surface area of the activated carbon which is well known within the art to increase the rate of gas adsorption.
Claim(s) 6, 15, 23, 26, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Evaluation of CO2 adsorption capacity of electrospun carbon fibers with thermal and chemical activation” Kim et al. in view of NPL “CO2 and H2S Removal from CH4‑Rich Streams by Adsorption on Activated Carbons Modified with K2CO3, NaOH, or Fe2O3” Castrillon et al., in further view of US 20130036905 A1 Lively et al. Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. in view of Castrillon et al. teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 6 further requires “the fibrous mat comprises hollow fibers”. Neither Kim et al. nor Castrillon et al. disclose hollow fibers. Lively et al. is similarly directed to the removal of gasses, such as CO2, from a stream of mixed gas (“The sorbent material can comprise less than about 80% by weight of the fiber. The sorbent material can have a selectivity for carbon dioxide over nitrogen of about 10 to about 60 and a heat of sorption of about -25 kJ/(mol CO2) to about -90 kJ/(mol CO2).” [0015]). Lively et al. discloses hollow polymer fibers “Broadly described, an aspect of the present invention comprises a sorbent fiber, comprising: a hollow fiber comprising at least one sorbent material … A hollow fiber can further comprise a polymer matrix.” [0013-0014].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the feature of a hollow fiber from Lively et al. with the polymer mat of Kim et al. for at least the reason that they are both similarly directed to polymer fibers for solving the same problem, namely adsorption of CO2 from a mixed gas stream.
The motivation to have used a hollow fiber as suggested by Lively et al. is given by Lively et al. “The mixed matrix hollow fiber platform was chosen for several reasons. First, higher sorption efficiencies can be achieved by utilizing the hollow fiber morphology for Supplying cooling agents in the bore of the fiber during sorption and heating agents in the bore during desorption. Secondly, the thin porous walls of the fiber allow for very rapid heat and mass transfer times, a necessity in Such demanding feeds. Finally, in the design, the heating and cooling agents in the fibers can simply be steam and water, therefore removing any waste by-products associated with the system.” [0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the hollow fiber for any of the three reasons listed by Lively et al. above.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim et al. in view of Castrillon et al. teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 15 further requires “the composite comprises up to 40 wt% of the activated carbon.”. Neither Kim et al. nor Castrillon et al. explicitly teach combining their invention with the other, and therefore do not teach a wt. %. Lively et al. is directed to a hollow fiber polymer with a sorbent material, such as activated carbon. Lively et al. discloses in Example 4, Table 2 [0118] a hollow fiber polymer with 30 wt. % of zeolite 13X as the sorbent material. This example makes at least a polymer composition with 30 wt. % of the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 (as suggested by Castrillon et al.) obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art, which reads on the range claimed (0-40 wt. %).
Regarding Claim 23, Kim et al. in view of Castrillon et al. teach all of the limitations of Claim 21. Claim 23 further requires “the fiber is a hollow fiber”. Neither Kim et al. nor Castrillon et al. disclose hollow fibers. Lively et al. discloses hollow polymer fibers “Broadly described, an aspect of the present invention comprises a sorbent fiber, comprising: a hollow fiber comprising at least one sorbent material … A hollow fiber can further comprise a polymer matrix.” [0013-0014].
Regarding Claim 26, Kim et al. in view of Castrillon et al. teach all of the limitations of Claim 21. Claim 26 further requires “the composite comprises up to 40 wt% of the activated carbon.”. Neither Kim et al. nor Castrillon et al. explicitly teach combining their invention with the other, and therefore do not teach a wt. %. Lively et al. is directed to a hollow fiber polymer with a sorbent material, such as activated carbon. Lively et al. discloses in Example 4, Table 2 [0118] a hollow fiber polymer with 30 wt. % of zeolite 13X as the sorbent material. This example makes at least a polymer composition with 30 wt. % of the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 (as suggested by Castrillon et al.) obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art, which reads on the range claimed (0-40 wt. %).
Regarding Claim 32, Kim et al. in view of Castrillon et al. teach all of the limitations of Claim 27. Claim 32 further requires “the composite comprises up to 40 wt% of the activated carbon.”. Neither Kim et al. nor Castrillon et al. explicitly teach combining their invention with the other, and therefore do not teach a wt. %. Lively et al. is directed to a hollow fiber polymer with a sorbent material, such as activated carbon. Lively et al. discloses in Example 4, Table 2 [0118] a hollow fiber polymer with 30 wt. % of zeolite 13X as the sorbent material. This example makes at least a polymer composition with 30 wt. % of the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 (as suggested by Castrillon et al.) obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art, which reads on the range claimed (0-40 wt. %).
Claim(s) 27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190291077 A1 Pang et al. in view of NPL “CO2 and H2S Removal from CH4‑Rich Streams by Adsorption on Activated Carbons Modified with K2CO3, NaOH, or Fe2O3” Castrillon et al. Claim 27 requires “A polymer composite comprising: a polymer substrate”. Pang et al. discloses “Methods of making a poly(propylenimine) (PPI) sorbent, a PPI sorbent, structures including the PPI sorbent, methods of separating CO2 using the PPI sorbent, and the like, are disclosed.” [0033].
Claim 27 further requires “activated carbon; and a carbonate salt, wherein the activated carbon is infused with the carbonate salt”. Pang et al. does not disclose active carbon infused with a carbonate salt.
Castrillon et al. is similarly directed to methods of removing CO2. Castrillon et al. discloses active carbon infused with a carbonate salt “Three commercial activated carbons produced by Donau Carbon GmbH (Germany), named as … Desorex K43-BG (impregnated with K2CO3) were studied in this work” [Page 9597, Section 2.1].
Claim 27 further requires “the activated carbon is dispersed throughout the polymer substrate”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have achieved the combination of the polymer of Pang et al. with the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 of Castrillon et al. by dispersing the activated carbon throughout the polymer substrate by any means known in the art, for example, by dry mixing, although not limited to such a method. Furthermore, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the polymer of Pang et al. with the activated carbon of Castrillon et al. without dispersing the activated carbon throughout the fibers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the polymer of Pang et al. with the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 composite of Castrillon et al. because both materials are known to be effective at adsorbing CO2 (see title of Castrillon and [0033] (above) of Pang et al.).
The motivation to have used the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 composite of Castrillon et al. in/on the polymer substrate of Pang et al. is given by Castrillon et al. in at least Figure 3 [Page 9599] which shows the carbon infused with K2CO3 to be the best material at adsorbing CO2 at all pressures of the three materials studied.
Claim 29 requires “the polymer composite further comprises a foaming agent”. Pang et al. discloses “In an aspect, the substrate can include a porous coating (also referred to as a "washcoat") on the surface of the substrate. In an embodiment, the porous coating can be a foam such as a polymeric foam (e.g., polyurethane foam, a polypropylene foam, a polyester foam, and the like)” [0057]. Although Pang et al. does not explicitly disclose a foaming agent it is well known in the art of polyurethane formation that a foaming agent is required to obtain a polyurethane foam, and therefore would have been obvious to include in order to achieve the polyurethane foam disclosed.
Claim 30 requires “the polymer substrate is in the form of a foam”. Pang et al. discloses “In an aspect, the substrate can include a porous coating (also referred to as a "washcoat") on the surface of the substrate. In an embodiment, the porous coating can be a foam such as a polymeric foam (e.g., polyurethane foam, a polypropylene foam, a polyester foam, and the like)” [0057].
Claim(s) 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 20200235623 A1 Yu et al1, in view of NPL “CO2 and H2S Removal from CH4‑Rich Streams by Adsorption on Activated Carbons Modified with K2CO3, NaOH, or Fe2O3” Castrillon et al. Claim 33 requires “A polymer composite comprising: a polymer substrate comprising a cured epoxy resin”. Yu et al. discloses “Here, the thermoplastic resin that the mixture contains is not specifically limited, and examples thereof include a polyolefin such as …, and a polyethylene oxide” [0168]. Polyethylene oxide resin is identified as an epoxy resin. The choice of polyethylene oxide would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is disclosed as effective.
Claim 33 further requires “wherein the cured epoxy resin is a film”. Yu et al. discloses “The shape of the powder compaction - molded article is not specifically limited and can be appropriately selected depending on the intended use. For example, a film and a cylinder are shapes easy to use. In the case where the powder compaction - molded article is in the form of a film, as it may have a single - layer structure or may have a multilayer structure formed by laminating plural films” [0154].
Claim 33 further requires “activated carbon; and a carbonate salt, wherein the activated carbon is infused with the carbonate salt”. Yu et al. does not disclose active carbon infused with a carbonate salt.
Castrillon et al. is similarly directed to methods of removing CO2. Castrillon et al. discloses active carbon infused with a carbonate salt “Three commercial activated carbons produced by Donau Carbon GmbH (Germany), named as … Desorex K43-BG (impregnated with K2CO3) were studied in this work” [Page 9597, Section 2.1].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the polymer film of Yu et al. with the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 composite of Castrillon et al. because both materials are known to be effective at adsorbing CO2 (see title of Castrillon and Yu et al. “The mixed gas to be subjected to gas separation with the gas separator of the present invention includes a natural gas, a biogas, a landfill gas, a burnt gas, a fuel gas and a gas after steam reforming. Using the gas separator of the present invention, for example, carbon dioxide can be separated from these mixed gases at high selectivity and for a short period of time to significantly lower the concentration of carbon dioxide in the resultant mixed gases.” [0184]).
The motivation to have used the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 composite of Castrillon et al. in/on the polymer film of Yu et al. is given by Castrillon et al. in at least Figure 3 [Page 9599] which shows the carbon infused with K2CO3 to be the best material at adsorbing CO2 at all pressures of the three materials studied.
Claim 34 requires “a thickness of the film is in a range between about 50 µm and about 10 mm.”. This is equivalent to a thickness between 50 µm and 10,000 µm. Yu et al. discloses “The length in the compression direction (thickness) of the powder compaction-molded article is preferably 1 µm to 10000 µm, more preferably 5 µm to 5000 µm, even more preferably 10 µm to 1000 µm.” [0152].
Claim 35 requires “the activated carbon is dispersed throughout the polymer substrate.”. Yu et al. discloses “The gas - absorbing material of the present invention can be produced by mixing amino group - having polymer compound particles, fine particles having a primary particle diameter of 1000 nm or less, and other optional components. Preferably, these materials are mixed in a dry mixing mode of mixing the materials in a dry state” [0140]. The dry mixing is understood to evenly disperse all ingredients, including the activated carbon infused with K2CO3 suggested by Castrillon et al., throughout the polymer substrate.
Claim 36 requires “the activated carbon is adhered to a surface of the polymer substrate.”. The dry mixing of activated carbon and polymer (see Claim 35) is understood to adhere the activated carbon to the polymer substrate.
Claim 37 requires “the carbonate salt comprises potassium carbonate or sodium carbonate.”. Castrillon et al. discloses potassium carbonate (see Claim 33).
Claim 38 requires “the composite comprises up to 40 wt% of the activated carbon.”. Yu et al. discloses “The content of the thermoplastic resin in the mixture is preferably 1 vol % to 99 vol %, more preferably 5 vol % to 95 vol %, even more preferably 10 vol % to 90 vol %.” [0169], which is interpreted to mean that the rest of the composition may be between 10-90 vol %. Because the density of activated carbon (0.4-0.6 g/mL) and polyethylene oxide (1.2 g/mL) are known a conversion between vol. % and wt. % follows. Assuming 1 mL of composite material gives between 0.12-1.08 g (10-90 vol %) of resin for (0.36-0.54)-(0.04-0.06) g of activated carbon (90-10 vol %). This corresponds to a wt. % of activated carbon of 3.6-82 wt.% (0.04 g AC/(0.04 g AC + 1.08 g resin)*100% = 3.6% and 0.54g AC/(0.54 g AC + 0.12 g resin)*100% = 82%), which is within the range claimed (0-40 wt.%).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
1NOTE: the Office is employing US 20230001382 A1 as an English-language equivalent of the Japanese-language WO 20200235623 A1 (WO 20200235623 A1 qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2)). Indeed, US 20230001382 A1 is a National Stage domestication application under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/JP2020/020080, which is the PCT application for which WO 20200235623 A1 is the WIPO publication thereof. See the front page of both WO 20200235623 A1 and US 20230001382 A1. As such, while the rejection itself employs WO 20200235623 A1 as the primary reference therefor, all citations within the rejection are in fact to US 20230001382 A1 (i.e. “see WO 20200235623 A1 at par. 28” in fact directs the reader to par. 28 of US 20230001382 A1). All citations within US 20230001382 A1 shall be understood as also citing to the corresponding portions of WO 20200235623 A1.
Prosecution Insights