DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 20-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims have been amended to recite a method of using the catalyst article obtained by the method of Claim 1. These claims are therefore now drawn to distinct processes, as the method of Claim 1 aims to produce a catalyst, and the method of Claims 20-22 aims to purify an exhaust gas.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 20-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20110033353A1, hereinafter ‘Siani’, in view of Rivas et al. (Poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid)–metal complexes with copper(II), cobalt(II), and nickel(II): Synthesis, characterization and structure of its metal chelates, Polyhedron, 1999), hereinafter ‘Rivas’, and further in view of US20120180464A1, hereinafter ‘Wei’.
Regarding Claim 1, Siani discloses a method of manufacturing a catalyst article ([0002]), the method comprising:
providing a complex of a polymer and a PGM (Example 3, [0111]: 6.6 g of an H2PtCl6 solution, a solution comprising the platinum group metal Pt, was mixed with 10 mg of Poly vinylpyrrolidone (PVP) – this mixture is considered to form a complex);
providing a support material; applying the complex to the support material to form a loaded support material ([0111]: Following stirring for 1 hour in air of the obtained mixture (of the Pt/polymer solution), an appropriate amount of alumina powder (a support material) was added, thereby forming a loaded support material);
disposing the loaded support material on a substrate ([0124]-[0125]: powders corresponding to Examples 2-3, 7, and 9 were combined with cordierite, a substrate); and
heating the loaded support material to form nanoparticles of the PGM on the support material ([0121]: the powder of Example 3 was thermally aged for 12 hours at 800 °C; [0112]: the precious metals are present in the composition as nanoparticles).
Further regarding Claim 1, Siani discloses the use of polymers, such as the PVP utilized in the above examples, as a protecting agent for the precious metal ([0048]). Particularly, Siani discloses that any suitable compound can be used in the context of the invention as the protecting agent, and defines suitable as soluble homo- and co-polymers having one or more amino, amido, carboxylic, aldehydic, or hydroxyl groups, and organic molecules having one or more amino, amido, carboxylic, aldehydic, or hydroxyl groups and mixtures thereof ([0046]). In a particular embodiment, Sinai discloses preferred protecting agents include poly(vinylalcohol), poly(vinylpyrrolidone), poly(ethyleneimine), poly(acrylic acid), carbohydrates, or alkali metal citrates ([0048]).
However, Siani does not disclose the use of a maleic acid-containing polymer in the formation of the PGM complex as claimed.
Rivas discloses the formation of metal complexes using poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid) (PAAMA) and chlorides of copper, cobalt, and nickel (Title). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Rivas as analogous to Siani, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the synthesis of metal-containing polymer materials - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Particularly, both Siani and Rivas disclose the admixture of a metal chloride with a co-polymer having carboxylic groups (both the acrylic and maleic portions of PAAMA contain carboxylic acid groups). Furthermore, while Rivas does not disclose the use of PGMs such as those utilized by Siani, it is clear from the disclosure of Rivas that the findings therein are not exclusive to these metals – particularly, Rivas discloses “[i]t is well known that the carboxylic acid moiety forms stable complexes or exchanges the protons with metal ion depending on the pH” (3. Results and discussion). Notably, the disclosure of Siani discloses a step of adjusting the pH of the mixture of the metal precursor, protecting agent, and support ([0022]-[0027]). Therefore, the general teachings of Rivas are considered applicable to the process disclosed by Siani.
Further, Rivas discloses that a copolymer poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid) with a high content of carboxylic ligand groups was used to prepare polychelates, or polymers synthesized to bond with metal ions (3. Results and discussion). Rivas discloses the successful formation of complexes with all metals utilized by the study (4. Conclusions).
Therefore, given that Siani discloses the use of protecting agents comprising co-polymers having a carboxylic group, such as poly(acrylic acid), and given that Rivas discloses successfully binding metal ions with a poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid) polymer solution comprising several carboxylic groups, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid) polymer solution as a protecting agent in the process of Siani, as PAAMA would be considered a suitable protecting agent within the process of Siani, thereby making obvious the use of a maleic acid-containing polymer as claimed.
Further regarding Claim 1, while Siani as modified above discloses the synthesis of a catalyst powder according to Claim 1, Siani as modified above discloses the admixture of catalyst powder and substrate powder ([0124]), and does not disclose the loaded support material being disposed on the substrate in the form of a slurry.
Wei discloses catalyst systems for the treatment of gaseous streams of gasoline engines ([0002]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Wei as analogous to Sinai as modified above, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, exhaust gas purification catalysts - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Wei discloses a method for forming monolithic exhaust gas catalyst from a slurry of active catalytic materials. Particularly, Wei discloses the formation of a monolithic catalyst by applying a wash coat, or a thin, adherent coating of a catalytic or other material applied to a substrate carrier material, such as a honeycomb-type carrier member, which is sufficiently porous to permit the passage there through of the gas stream being treated ([0028]). By this method, a catalyst may be prepared such that it possesses distinct layers serving different functions - to incorporate components such as precious metals, stabilizers and/or promoters, such components may be incorporated in the slurry as a mixture of water soluble or water-dispersible compounds or complexes. Wei discloses specifically that such a method includes preparing a mixture of a solution of a desired precious metal compound and at least one support, such as a finely divided, high surface area, refractory metal oxide support, e.g., gamma alumina, to form a wet solid which later is combined with water to form a coatable slurry. This slurry is coated upon a catalyst substrate, thereby impregnating the substrate with the catalytic material, and additional layers may be applied upon the first wash coat layer ([0030], [0032]).
Further, Siani discloses an embodiment of the invention in which the inventive catalyst is compared to state-of-the-art examples in an environment simulating the exhaust emissions of a conventional diesel engine. Notably, while Siani does not disclose the use of a monolithic catalyst, Siani does disclose that the conditions of such testing are controlled to simulate what would be experienced by a monolith sample ([0124]). It is also disclosed that the invention is directed to the use of a catalyst by the process of the disclosed invention as a diesel oxidation catalyst ([0074]). Further, Wei discloses that the use of a porous substrate carrier material, such as a honeycomb-type carrier member, provides porosity to permit the passage there through of the gas stream being treated ([0028]) – it is evident that this would be advantageous in catalysis of such gas, as porosity provides increased surface area for contact between those materials in the exhaust gas targeted for removal and the catalytic metals that facilitate their catalysis and removal.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to coat a slurry of the catalytic material manufactured by the process of Siani as modified above upon a monolithic substrate, such as a honeycomb substrate, to form an effective diesel oxidation catalyst. Since the contact of exhaust gas with the catalytic material is required for exhaust gas treatment, and since disposing catalytic metals within a porous monolith would provide improved surface area for such contact, it would be obvious to perform such a wash coat method in order to result in a catalyst effective in the treatment of diesel exhaust.
Further regarding Claim 1, Siani as modified above makes obvious providing the complex of a maleic-acid containing polymer and a PGM comprises synthesizing the complex in situ ([0111] of Siani: an aqueous solution of H2PtCl6 is mixed with water, protecting agent, and subsequently alumina – when the process of Siani is modified to include the wash coat method of Wei as discussed above, the synthesis of the complex would take place in situ in the slurry, as the complex is not prepared separately before being applied to the substrate in the form of a slurry).
Regarding Claims 2-5, Siani as modified above makes obvious the use of PAAMA as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, Siani as modified above makes obvious the use of platinum as the PGM ([0111]).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Siani as modified above makes obvious the use of alumina, or Al2O3, as the support material ([0111]).
Regarding Claim 10, Siani as modified above makes obvious the use of a support material comprising zirconia ([0058] of Siani: the support material may be selected from, among others including aluminum dioxide, zirconium oxide – therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try the use of a zirconium oxide support, as such supports are disclosed as suitable for use in the disclosed invention among a finite list of suitable support materials).
Regarding Claim 11, Siani as modified above makes obvious the use of alumina and/or zirconia as a support material, and further discloses that the utilized support may be present in the form of a solid solution, or a mixture of oxides ([0057]). Further, the catalyst of Siani is disclosed as a catalyst for the treatment of exhaust gas in diesel engines ([0074]).
However, Siani as modified above does not disclose the use of doped zirconia and/or alumina as claimed.
Wei discloses catalyst systems for the treatment of gaseous streams of gasoline engines ([0002]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Wei as analogous to Sinai as modified above, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, exhaust gas purification catalysts - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Wei discloses that for support of a platinum group metal, such as platinum, the metal is dispersed on a high surface area alumina support. Additionally, Wei discloses that the support metal may be stabilized against thermal degradation by the incorporation of materials into the alumina support such as, most usually, rare earth metal oxides, for example, ceria, lanthana and mixtures of two or more rare earth metal oxides ([0022]).
Given that the catalyst of Sinai as modified above is disclosed as an exhaust gas purification catalyst, which would operate at high temperatures generated by combustion, and given that Wei discloses the use of rare earth metal oxides such as lanthanum oxide that are “most usually” utilized within such catalysts to improve thermal stability of the support, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to dope the aluminum utilized by Siani as modified above with a rare earth metal such as lanthana to improve the thermal stability of the manufactured catalyst.
Regarding Claim 12, Siani as modified above makes obvious the use of alumina doped with lanthana, an oxide of lanthanum, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 15, Siani as modified above makes obvious the slurry is prepared by a method comprising contacting a PGM salt and a maleic acid-containing polymer in water to form the complex of a maleic acid-containing polymer and a PGM in an aqueous solution and applying the complex to the support material to form a loaded support material by contacting the support material with the aqueous solution ([0111] of Siani, as modified above: a solution of H2PtCl6, a PGM salt, is mixed with water and a PAAMA and stirred, after which alumina is added to the solution and mixed, thereby forming a loaded support material by contacting the support material with the aqueous solution).
Further regarding Claim 15, the limitation “optionally adding one or more of an oxygen storage material, preferably ceria-zirconia; a promoter salt; a binder; an acid or a base; a thickening agent; and a reducing agent to the aqueous solution” is an optional limitation. Therefore, this limitation is not required by the claim, as claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04 (I).
Regarding Claim 16, Siani does not disclose the slurry is prepared by a method comprising contacting a PGM salt and a support material in water to form a support material suspension, contacting the support material suspension with a maleic acid-containing polymer to form a loaded support material, the loaded support material comprising support material having a complex loaded thereon, the complex comprising a complex of the maleic acid-containing polymer and the PGM.
However, these claims are drawn to limitations pertaining to the sequence of adding ingredients — as held by the court in In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930), the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results associated with the claimed order of adding said ingredients. In the instant case, considering the instant published specification at [0073], it is disclosed that “[s]uch a “one-pot” preparation method may be simplified and lower cost in comparison to conventional methods. It may also maximize utilization of the polymers.” While this presents “one-pot” preparation as having an advantage in simplification of the process and maximization of polymer utilization, it is not clear whether “one-pot” synthesis as disclosed herein encompasses any embodiment considered “one-pot”, or whether the particular claimed method requiring the formation of a support material suspension is associated with these results. Nonetheless, simplification of the process is not considered to rise to the level of unexpected results, as a reduction in mixing vessels would clearly result in a process having less components, thereby reducing process complexity, and therefore such an advantage is not considered unexpected. As such, absent other evidence of such new or unexpected results associated with the sequence of adding ingredients, the claimed sequence of ingredients is considered prima facie obvious over the disclosure of Siani as modified above, which discloses the sequence of adding ingredients disclosed in Claim 15.
Further regarding Claim 16, the limitation “optionally adding one or more of an oxygen storage material, preferably ceria-zirconia; a promoter salt; a binder; an acid or a base; a thickening agent; and a reducing agent to the support material suspension” is an optional limitation. Therefore, this limitation is not required by the claim, as claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04 (I).
Regarding Claim 17, Siani as modified above does not disclose disposing a further slurry on the substrate, the further slurry comprising one or more of a further support material; an oxygen storage material; a promoter salt; a binder; an acid or a base; a thickening agent; and a reducing agent, wherein disposing the further slurry on the substrate takes place before disposing the support material on the substrate and/or after heating the loaded support material to form nanoparticles of the PGM on the support material.
However, Wei discloses that additional layers, i.e., second and third layers, may be prepared and deposited upon the first layer in the same manner as described above for deposition of the first layer upon the carrier. In particular embodiments, Wei discloses the manufacture of multi-layered catalysts in which a precious metal layer supported by alumina is coated on a monolith, dried and calcined, and subsequently the calcined article is coated again with a top coat comprising rhodium, a catalytic metal suitable for use within the process of Siani ([0071]), promoters such as Ba and Zr, and an oxygen storage component comprising a solid solution of cerium and zirconium (Examples 2, 4-7). Promoters are known to “promote” the activity of a catalyst, thereby increasing its activity in catalysis of reactions to remove target components in the exhaust gas. Additionally, providing a second layer comprising rhodium, a catalytic metal, increases the loading of catalytic metal, thereby increasing the capacity of said catalyst for promoting the conversion of target components in the exhaust gas. Wei demonstrates in these examples that, when applying multiple layers, a first layer is applied, calcined, and subsequent to calcination a second layer is applied.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to dispose a second layer of catalyst material upon the coated monolith catalyst of Siani as modified above following heating the loaded support material to form nanoparticles of the PGM on the support material, said layer including rhodium, promoters such as Ba and Zr, and an oxygen storage component comprising a solid solution of cerium and zirconium. The presence of this additional layer would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to lead to improved catalyst performance in removal of target components from exhaust gas by the presence of additional catalytic metals in addition to promoters that improve the activity of said catalyst.
Regarding Claim 18, Siani as modified above makes obvious the substrate is in the form of a honeycomb monolith (as discussed above, Wei suggests the use of a honeycomb monolith as a substrate within the process of Siani).
Regarding Claim 19, Siani as modified above makes obvious the heating is carried out at a temperature of from 400° C. to 700° C ([0061] of Wei: the heating of the catalyst is performed at 590 °C in air – given this treatment results in the formation of an exhaust gas catalyst as desired by Sinai, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a temperature of 590 °C for heating the coated monolith in the process of Siani as modified above, as such a temperature has been shown to predictably yield an exhaust gas catalyst suitable for use in treating exhaust gas).
Further regarding Claim 19, the instant claim is drawn to limitations that are presented in the alternative, or are otherwise considered "optional", such that they are not required by the claim in the presence of other alternatives. In the instant case, such limitation is: “…wherein the heating is carried out…for from 10 to 360 minutes”. Therefore, given that Siani as modified above suggests heating at a temperature within the claimed range, the corresponding alternative is not required by the claim.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20110033353A1, hereinafter ‘Siani’, in view of Rivas et al. (Poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid)–metal complexes with copper(II), cobalt(II), and nickel(II): Synthesis, characterization and structure of its metal chelates, Polyhedron, 1999), hereinafter ‘Rivas’, further in view of US20120180464A1, hereinafter ‘Wei’, and evidenced by Grimm et al. (A crystallization screen based on alternative polymeric precipitants, Biological Crystallography, 2010), hereinafter ‘Grimm’, and Millipore Sigma (Poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid) solution).
Regarding Claim 6, while Siani as modified above suggests the use of PAAMA as a protecting agent, Rivas is silent regarding the ratio of acrylic acid to maleic acid in said PAAMA solution. However, Rivas discloses the use of “Poly(acrylic acid-co-maleic acid), MW 50 000, Aldrich” – as evidenced by Grimm, maleic acid/acrylic acid copolymer solutions available from Aldrich are ‘50/50’ (Page 692, passage below the end of Table 2), meaning that the solution comprises 50 mol% of both acrylic and maleic acid (such co-polymers are conventionally described on a molar basis – see Millipore Sigma PAAMA product page, attached). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize such a solution, having a 1:1 molar ratio of acrylic acid to maleic acid and falling within the instant claimed range, as the use of such a solution within Rivas results in effective metal-polymer complex formation, and further such a solution would contain carboxyl groups capable of forming such a complex, absent evidence of criticality associated with the claimed ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/12/2026, are acknowledged.
With respect to arguments with regard to objections and the rejection of Claim(s) under section 112(b), the arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to arguments in regard to prior art rejections under section 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. These rejections, as repeated above, are maintained.
Applicant argues that Siani does not present a prima facie case of obviousness over the amended claims, asserting that Siani fails to teach or suggest a process whereby the loaded support material is disposed on the substrate in the form of a slurry and wherein providing the complex of a maleic acid-containing polymer and a PGM comprises synthesizing the complex in situ in the slurry (see Remarks, Page 8).
This is not persuasive, as this argument addresses the unmodified examples of Siani without considering the suggestion of the prior art as a whole, including those washcoat steps suggested by Wei. Wei teaches preparing and applying a catalytic washcoat slurry to a monolithic substrate. In view of Wei, it would have been obvious to perform Siani’s aqueous PGM/polymer/support contacting step as the washcoat slurry used for substrate deposition, thereby forming the PGM/polymer/support in situ in said slurry. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the Office has not identified any aspect of Siani that would provide any motivation to manufacture a catalyst article in the specific manner required by the claims (see Remarks, page 9). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for such a motivation is repeated as it appears in the rejection above: “Since the contact of exhaust gas with the catalytic material is required for exhaust gas treatment, and since disposing catalytic metals within a porous monolith would provide improved surface area for such contact, it would be obvious to perform such a wash coat method in order to result in a catalyst effective in the treatment of diesel exhaust”.
Applicant argues that Siani does not disclose or suggest use of a maleic acid-containing polymer, teaches that there is unpredictability as to the stability of such polymers and their interaction with support materials, and that Rivas does not disclose the formation of PGM polymer complexes, such that the application of these polymers to PGMs would be unpredictable (see Remarks, page 9). This is not persuasive – Siani’s discussion of stability problems provides motivation for using stabilizing/protecting polymers. It does not, in any express way, teach anything regarding unpredictability of polymers within the disclosed technology as argued by Applicant. Siani expressly teaches such protecting agents, and Rivas is relied upon only to show that a maleic-acid/acrylic-acid copolymer is a known carboxylate polymer capable of metal complexation.
Conclusion
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 LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights