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 .
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.
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3, 5, 9, and 17-22 as well as the amendments to claim 1 are acknowledged.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the prior rejections under 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC § 102, which are withdrawn.
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.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fung et al. (US 2015/0105497 A1) in view of Ho et al. (US 2011/0031454 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Fung teaches core-shell particles comprised of inorganic fillers coated with molybdenum compounds (abstract), where the inorganic filler may be a metal hydroxide comprising aluminum trihydroxide (aluminum hydroxide; [0014]), where the molybdenum compound may be ammonium octamolybdate ([0041]), and where the molybdenum compound is 0.01 to 4.8 wt% of the complex (molybdenum compound at 0.01 to 5 wt% of the inorganic filler corresponds to 0.01 to 4.8 wt% of the whole complex; [0033]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of from 1 to 95 wt% of the complex being the AOM. Fung also teaches that the AOM/ATH complex is a core-shell particle of ATH and AOM ([0010]). In such a particle the shell of AOM can be considered bound to the ATH core.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the AOM/hydroxide complex as disclosed by Fung, where the wt% of the AOM is anywhere from about 0.01% wt% to about 4.8 wt%, including in the portion of the range that overlaps with that instantly claimed.
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01).
While Fung is silent with respect to the crystalline form of the ammonium octamolybdate in the complex, both Fung and the instantly disclosed examples teach heating of the ATH/AOM mixtures in water for several hours at 80-90°C (8 hours at 88 °C in the instant examples 1-8; 2-4 hours at 80 °C in Fung, [0050]), it is believed that both preparations would form the same orthorhombic AOM.
Furthermore, Ho teaches ammonium octamolybdate coated inorganic particles that are similar to those of Fung (abstract), and further teaches preparing these particles in a manner even more analogous to the methods currently disclosed: from ammonium dimolybdate and molybdenum trioxide at 88 °C ([0036] and [0037]). These methods are also expected to afford complexes with AOM in an orthorhombic crystal form at the required levels as a result of their preparation method which is largely identical to those preparations instantly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the complexes taught by Fung according to the method of Ho, thereby affording complexes where the weight % of the AOM in the orthorhombic crystalline form falls in the claimed ranges of claims 1 and 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because while Fung discloses use of ammonium octamolybdate complexes, they are silent on a specific procedure for preparing that particular variant, while Ho teaches the specifics of preparing AOM coated particles in particular.
It is noted that the courts have held that "the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). While Ho and Fung may not have appreciated the orthorhombic nature of the crystals they prepared, it is believed that their preparation method would have afforded such a structure.
It is additionally noted that “the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, Fung teaches the complex of claim 1 but does not teach the complex comprising from 15 to 35 wt% of the AOM.
However, Ho teaches ammonium octamolybdate coated inorganic particles that are similar to those of Fung (abstract), and also teaches that the amount of AOM in these complexes can be in the range of from about 20% to about 85% by weight of an ammonium octamolybdate ([0029]). Ho further teaches that these particles are effective smoke-suppressant additives to polymers (abstract), including when added with aluminum hydroxide (alumina trihydrate; [0033])
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 the weight % AOM in the complexes of Fung into the range of 20 wt% to 80 wt% taught by Ho, which includes the instantly claimed range or from 15 wt% to 35 wt%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ho teaches that compositions at these percentages make effective smoke suppressants when added to polymers. It is noted that both Fung and Ho are looking to improve the properties of polymer compositions by the addition of AOM/inorganic particle core-shell particles.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.01.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation that the metal hydroxide comprises precipitated ATH, as opposed to the ATH prepared by any method required by claim 1, is considered a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the courts have held that "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I).
Therefore, because Fung teaches the product of claim 1, the limitations of claim 4 can also be considered obvious.
It is also noted that the courts have held that "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 7, Fung teaches the complex of claim 1, but is silent on the amount of gallium in their complexes. However, the mere purity of a product by itself does not render the product nonobvious.
In this case, while Applicant has noted an unexpected result concerning the preparation of the AOM/ATH complexes, which they relate to the level of gallium in the ATH (p. 21, lines 16-18), there is no material difference noted between the formed AOM/ATH complexes of claim 1 that contain levels of gallium above 25 ppm versus those with gallium levels below 25 ppm. The instantly claimed compositions with an amount of gallium below 25 ppm by weight are therefore considered to have the same utility as the compositions of claim 1 with unknown gallium content taught by Fung and are therefore considered an obvious variation. In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 148 USPQ 268. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
Regarding claim 8, Fung teaches the complex claim 1, and further teaches the particle size is between 0.01 and 50 μm ([0010]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed size of from 0.5 to 10 μm. Although Fung specifically references the size of the filler particle, because the molybdenum compound is added at only 5% the mass of the inorganic filler it is not expected to significantly change the size of the resultant core-shell complex.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the AOM/hydroxide complex as disclosed by Fung, where the particle size is from 0.01 to 50 μm, including in the portion of the range that overlaps with that instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Fung teaches the complex of claim 1, where the metal hydroxide (inorganic filler) particles used to form the core may be spherical ([0014]). Because the molybdenum compound coating is only present at up to 5%, the resultant complexes are also expected to be spherical.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Fung teaches the complex of claim 1, and also teaches that this complex can be incorporated into a resin (polymer) and that this resin may be an epoxy resin ([0053]), thereby meeting the limitations of claims 11 and 13.
Regarding claim 12, Fung teaches the composition of claim 11, but does not teach the polymer comprising a rigid PVC or a flexible PVC.
However, Ho teaches polymer compositions comprising the similar core-shell inorganic-AOM particles to Fung where these particles are used as smoke suppressants in flexible and rigid PVC. Ho further teaches that these polymers should also include aluminum hydroxide (alumina trihydrate; [0033])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the aluminum hydroxide-AOM particles taught by Fung into a flexible PVC polymer or rigid PVC polymer, as taught by Ho, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention of claim 12. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Fung and Ho teach analogous particles and Ho teaches that particle with similar composition and structure make effective smoke suppressants when added to rigid PVC or flexible PVC.
Regarding claim 14, Fung teaches the composition of claim 11 where the amount of the ammonium molybdate/metal hydride complex in the polymer composition is 20 wt% to 80 wt% of the resin mixture ([0015]), which falls in the instantly claimed range of 1 phr to 50 phr (phr, parts by weight per hundred parts of resin, is equivalent to wt% relative to the resin).
Regarding claim 15, Fung teaches the composition of claim 11 and that composition further comprises a curing agent (phenol-type resin curing agent; [0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Fung teaches the composition of claim 11 and that these polymer compositions (resins) can be used to make printed circuit boards ([0002]), which are articles of manufacture.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,070,990 in view of Fung et al. (US 2015/0105497 A1).
Regarding instant claims 1, 2 and 6, claim 1 of the ‘990 patent teaches an ammonium octamolybdate/metal hydroxide mixture composition: ammonium octamolybdate (AOM); and a metal hydroxide (talc); wherein the complex comprises from about 20 to about 80 wt. % of the AOM, a range which lies inside that recited in instant claim 1 and overlaps with that recited in instant claim 2. The ‘990 patent does not disclose the metal hydroxide being aluminum hydroxide, the composition comprising a complex where AOM is bound to ATH, or at least 80 wt.% or 98 wt% of the ammonium octamolybdate in the complex being present in an orthorhombic crystalline form.
However, Fung teaches that the inert core of closely related composition can have a core-shell structure ([0010]), a complex where the shell is bound to the core, and that the core can be not only talc, as used in the ‘990 patent, but also aluminum trihydroxide ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, form the metal hydroxide and AOM composition of the ‘990 patent as core-shell complex using ATH in place of talc, as taught by Fung. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because claim 8 of the ‘990 patent teaches that ATH makes a good additive to compositions containing the complexes, claim 3 of the patent recites a surface-coating like that used by Fung, and because Fung teaches that ATH is an alternative to talc as the core of such complexes.
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed instantly ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values in the ‘990 patent.
Regarding the limitation that the at least 80 wt.% of the ammonium octamolybdate in the complex being present in an orthorhombic crystalline form, while the ‘990 patent is silent on the crystal system of the AOM, it does require that the particles of AOM have a substantially rod-shaped morphology. The ‘990 patent and related prior art, such as US 2011/0031454 A1, provide evidence that such rod-like AOM is produced under conditions largely identical to those instantly claimed (from ammonium dimolybdate and MoO3 slurry at 88°C followed by drying) and thus are expected to have the same crystal form as instantly claimed.
Regarding instant claim 4, the limitation that the metal hydroxide comprises precipitated ATH, as opposed to the ATH prepared by any method required by claim 1, is considered a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the courts have held that "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113(I).
Therefore, because the product of instant claim 1 is obvious over the ‘990 patent, the limitations of claim 4 can also be considered obvious.
It is also noted that the courts have held that "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding instant claim 7, the claims of the ‘990 patent and Fung are both silent on the level of gallium impurity in their compositions. However, the mere purity of a product by itself does not render the product nonobvious.
In this case, while Applicant has noted an unexpected result concerning the preparation of the AOM/ATH complexes, which they relate to the level of gallium in the ATH (p. 21, lines 16-18), there is no material difference noted between the formed AOM/ATH complexes of claim 1 that contain levels of gallium above 25 ppm versus those with gallium levels below 25 ppm. The instantly claimed compositions with an amount of gallium below 25 ppm by weight are therefore considered to have the same utility as the compositions of claim 1 with unknown gallium content, and are therefore an obvious variation of the compositions in the ‘990 patent. In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 148 USPQ 268. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
Regarding instant claims 8 and 10, while the claims of the ‘990 patent are silent on the properties recited in the instant claims, Fung teaches particles used to form core have sizes between 0.01 and 50 μm ([0010]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed size of from 0.5 to 10 μm, and that the particles are spherical ([0014]). Although Fung specifically references the size and shape of the filler particle, because the molybdenum compound is added at only 5% the mass of the inorganic filler it is not expected to significantly change the size or shape of the resultant core-shell complex.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the AOM/hydroxide complexes described by modified claim 1 of the ‘990 patent, where the particle size is from 0.01 to 50 μm, including in the portion of the range that overlaps with that instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Fung teaches that particles of this size and shape make compositions with excellent processability ([0002]).
Regarding instant claims 11-13, claims 6 and 7 of the ‘990 patent recites incorporating the AOM/ATH complexes into a polymer composition and where that polymer is PVC, while Fung teaches that their closely related complexes can be incorporated into an epoxy resin ([0053]), thereby meeting the limitations of claims 11-13.
Regarding instant claim 14, while the ‘990 patent claims are silent on the polymer to ATM/AOM ratio, Fung teaches that the amount of the ammonium molybdate/metal hydride complex in a polymer composition is 20 wt% to 80 wt% of the resin mixture ([0015]), which falls in the instantly claimed range of 1 phr to 50 phr (phr, parts by weight per hundred parts of resin, is equivalent to wt% relative to the resin).
Regarding instant claim 15, while the ‘990 patent claims are silent on the presence of the additives recited in the instant claim, Fung teaches the composition that their related polymer composition further comprise a curing agent (phenol-type resin curing agent; [0053]).
Regarding instant claim 16, while the ‘990 patent claims are silent on using the composition to make an article of manufacture, it would have been obvious to use the polymers disclosed in claims 6-8 to manufacture some article containing PVC plastic that produces less smoke.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejections of claims 1, 2, 8, 11-12, and 14-16 over Ho under 35 US § 102, and with respect to claim 2, under 35 USC § 103,pages 5-6 of the reply filed 23 December 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Ho does not disclose the limitation wherein the metal hydroxide is aluminum trihydroxide required by the amended claims. The rejections over Ho under 35 USC § 102 and 103 and have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejections under 35 USC § 103 of claims 1, 3-11, and 14-16 over Fung, and claims 2 and 12 over Fung in view of Ho have also been fully considered. While the prior rejections have been modified in view of the amendments to the claims, Applicant’s arguments against a prima facie case of obviousness for amended claim 1 are not persuasive.
In particular, while Ho and Fung are silent with respect to the crystal form of the AOM in their composition, Ho teaches generation of the ammonium octamolybdate coated particles under conditions that are largely identical to those presently disclosed: by heating ammonium dimolybdate and molybdenum trioxide at 88 °C for several hours and then drying ([0036] and [0037]). As such, the methods of the prior art are expected to afford complexes with AOM in an orthorhombic crystal form at the same level as those methods used in the instant disclosure, and will therefore yield levels of orthorhombic form meeting the limitations of the instant claims.
It is noted that the courts have held that "the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Also, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112. In this case, it is believed that the preparations taught by Ho and Fung would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the same orthorhombic crystal forms as instantly claimed.
Applicant argues on page 7 against the obviousness-type double patenting rejections based upon the same arguments about the orthorhombic form presented for claim 1. For the same reasons as above, this argument is not persuasive.
In view of the amendments to NSDP rejection over claims 1-11 of the ‘990 patent alone has been withdrawn. However, a rejection of all pending claims over claims 1-11 of the ‘990 patent in view of Fung is presented above.
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 Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights