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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merit for claims 1, 6 – 7 and 9 – 21, 23 and 25 – 27 and 29 – 32. Claims 2 – 5, 8, 22, 24 and 28 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “impregnated with isopropyl alcohol” in line 5. The limitation does not find support in the specification. Applicant is advised to show where the support for the limitation can be found or to delete said limitation as it constitutes new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 6 – 7, 13 – 15, 17 – 19, 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Simon teaches a dissolvable wipe (Abstract) comprising a woven or non-woven, water soluble web that completely dissolves in water (Paragraph [0014]), wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraph [0079]), a stabilizing amount of an oil coated on or impregnating the water soluble (Paragraph [0156]), woven or non-woven web, and wherein the dissolvable wipe is coated or impregnated with a cleaning substance (Paragraph [0172]).
Simon does not explicitly teach a wet-laid fiber structure, wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains wet-laid, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers.
Ramaratnam teaches a dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1; Paragraph [0011]) comprising a woven or non-woven web (Paragraphs [0036] and [0055]) which contains a wet-laid fiber structure (Paragraph [0032]), wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains wet-laid, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraph [0032]) and wherein the dissolvable wipe is coated or impregnated with a cleaning substance (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to explicitly include a wet-laid fiber structure, wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains wet-laid, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, as taught by Ramaratnam, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Abstract) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does no explicitly teach in which the wet wipe has a rhomboid, rectangular or square shape.
Ramaratnam, however, teaches the wet wipe (1) has a rhomboid, rectangular or square shape (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to include the wet wipe has a rhomboid, rectangular or square shape, as taught by Ramaratnam, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Abstract) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does no explicitly teach the wet wipe is suitable to be dispensed from a sealed pack.
Ramaratnam, however, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1) in which the wet wipe (1) is suitable to be dispensed from a sealed pack (Paragraph [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to include the wet wipe is suitable to be dispensed from a sealed pack, as taught by Ramaratnam, to protect the wipe from getting wet, thus preventing damage to the wipe.
Regarding Claim 13, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Abstract) in which the dissolvable wipe has a soft finish or a mildly abrasive finish (Paragraph [0152]).
Regarding Claim 14, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Abstract) in which the surface of the wipe (Fig. 3) comprises grip points (corners of wipe, Fig. 3 can be grips, thus the surface has grip points).
Regarding Claim 15, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon teaches the wipe wherein additives are added (Paragraph [0101]), however, the reference does not explicitly teach the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is for a medical application, including the removal of adhesive residue. "As to the wipe is for a medical application, including the removal of adhesive residue”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2111.02 (II). However, because the wipes of Simon is structurally similar to that instantly claimed and includes additives, the wipes appears capable of being operated as claimed with similar if not identical claimed characteristics."
Regarding Claim 17, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon, as modified, does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the dimension of the wipe is 5" x 5" for medical applications and 7" x 8" for personal and industrial applications, however, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the dissolvable wipe in which the dimension of the wipe is 5" x 5" for medical applications and 7" x 8" for personal and industrial applications, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Abstract) in which the wipe is in a glove form (Claim 33).
Regarding Claim 19, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Abstract) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not explicitly teach in which the wipe stability is adapted to meet industry standard shelf life criteria.
Ramaratnam, however, teaches the wipe stability is adapted to meet industry standard shelf life criteria (Paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to include the wipe stability is adapted to meet industry standard shelf life criteria, as taught by Ramaratnam, to protect the wipe thus preventing damage to the wipe.
Regarding Claim 21, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon teaches additives added to the wipe (Paragraph [0101]) but fails to teach an exact amount and further does not explicitly teach approximately 3ml of each additive is required for each wipe, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the dissolvable wipe in which approximately 3ml of each additive is required for each wipe, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in size/amount is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Independent Claim 29, Simon teaches a method of making dissolvable wipes (Paragraph [0049]), comprising the steps of: a) forming a web comprising, non-woven, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraph [0079]), wherein the web is fully dissolvable in water (Paragraph [0014]) ; and b) impregnating the web with a cleaning substance (Paragraph [0172]) and a stabilizing amount of an oil water soluble resin (Paragraph [0128]); and c) cutting the impregnated web to provide the wipes (Paragraph [0155]).
Simon does not explicitly teach the web is wet laid and wherein the wipes have a wet- laid fiber structure.
Ramaratnam teaches a woven or non-woven web (Paragraphs [0036] and [0055]) is wet laid and wherein the wipes have a wet-laid fiber structure (Paragraph [0032]),.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to explicitly include a wet-laid fiber structure, wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains wet-laid, as taught by Ramaratnam, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Ouellette et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0227203 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not teach the wipe in which the material of the wet wipe includes a number of separate pieces of standard (non dissolvable) wet wipe material, such as woven or non-woven synthetic fibres, which are stitched together or joined together by intermingling with soluble thread using needling or joined together with soluble adhesive.
Ouellette, however, teaches the wipe in which the dissolvable wipe comprises a patchwork comprising separate pieces of standard (non dissolvable) wet wipe material (base layer 20 and secondary layer, 30; Abstract) which are stitched together or joined together with soluble thread or joined together with a soluble adhesive (Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the material of the wet wipe includes a number of separate pieces of standard (non dissolvable) wet wipe material, such as woven or non-woven synthetic fibres, which are stitched together or joined together by intermingling with soluble thread using needling or joined together with soluble adhesive to create a patchwork, as taught by Ouellette, to provide a wipe that has both wet strength and soft bulk so as to appear to a consumer to have sufficient durability and bulkiness for using in cleaning a variety of surfaces.
Regarding Claim 10, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 9 as discussed above.
Simon, as modified, does not teach the wipe dissolvable wipe in which the pieces in this patchwork arrangement can be of any suitable rhomboid shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the pieces in this patchwork arrangement can be of any suitable rhomboid shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04]. This modification would be beneficial in areas such as corners to clean trapped materials.
Regarding Claim 11, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 10 as discussed above.
Simon, as modified, does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the pieces in the patchwork are square shape.
Ouellette however, teaches the dissolvable wipe in which the pieces (20, 30) in the patchwork are square shape (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the dissolvable wipe in which the pieces are squares, as taught by Ouellet, to provide a wipe that has both wet strength and soft bulk so as to appear to a consumer to have sufficient durability and bulkiness for using in cleaning a variety of surfaces.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Policicchio et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0042439 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not teach the wipe in which the oil is selected from the group consisting of almond oil, mineral oil, or baby oil.
Policicchio, however, teaches the wipe (30) in which the oil is selected from the group consisting of almond oil, mineral oil, -or baby oil (Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the wipe in which the oil is selected from the group consisting of almond oil, mineral oil, or baby oil, as taught by Policicchio, to provide a sheet for cleaning hard surfaces which can efficaciously capture debris without leaving residue.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Grafe et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0092185 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not teach the cleaning substance comprises an alcohol effective for use for electrical equipment cleaning and the maintenance of clean rooms.
Grafe, however, teaches the cleaning substance comprises an alcohol (Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the cleaning substance comprises an alcohol, as taught by Grafe, to provide a wipe that disinfecting capabilities, thus improving the cleaning experience.
Regarding the limitation “effective for use for electrical equipment cleaning and the maintenance of clean rooms” it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2111.02 (II). However, because the wipes of Simon in view of Grafe is structurally similar to that instantly claimed and includes additives, the wipes appears capable of being operated as claimed with similar if not identical claimed characteristics." One would look to modify Simon with Grafe to further include due to the important characteristics of the wipe, that being the flexibility of the wipe and the flexibility of the fine fiber layer. While the polymers of the invention display flexural properties similar to unfilled polymer, the small fiber diameter gives the fiber on the wipe a unique flexibility and improved cleaning/polishing character.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Hill et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0159063 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the cleaning substance is selected from a group consisting of C9 - C12 Iso Paraffin, Triticum Vulgare, Lavandula Angustifolia, Melaleuca Alternifolia, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe) Leaf Extract, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Linalool and Limonene.
Hill, however, teaches the wipe in which the cleaning substance is selected from a group consisting of C9 - C12 Iso Paraffin, Triticum Vulgare, Lavandula Angustifolia, Melaleuca Alternifolia, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe) Leaf Extract, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Linalool and Limonene (Paragraph [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Simon, as modified teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not teach cross-laid water soluble fibers.
Tang, however, teaches cross-laid water soluble fibers (Paragraph [0006] and [0035] – cross-lapped).
Simon as modified by Tang does not explicitly teach the wipe containing reduced levels of fibrous product with a GSM of around 25 GSM, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the wipe containing reduced levels of fibrous product with a GSM of around 25 GSM, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). This reduction would allow to provide a wipe that has increased breathability, lighter weight, and potentially lower cost.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Aldridge et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0024699 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not teach the wipe is a napped wipe.
Aldridge, however, teaches the wipe is a napped wipe (Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the wipe is subject to napping during production to soften the material, as taught by Aldridge, to provide the article to have a high surface quality.
Claims 26 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Aubrun-Sonneville et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0134304 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not explicitly teach the dissolvable in which the material of the wipe is softened during manufacturing by using Calendaring rollers, however, regarding the limitation “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) (citations omitted).
Regarding Claim 27, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not explicitly teach the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is impregnated with various natural oils and chemicals.
Aubrun-Sonneville teaches the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is impregnated with various natural oils and chemicals (Paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to explicitly include the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is impregnated with various natural oils and chemicals, as taught by Aubrun-Sonneville, to provide a dissolvable wipe that helps in reducing the quantity of solid waste produced by a consumer, thus environmentally friendly.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Bainbridge et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0032424 A1).
Regarding Claim 30, Simon, as modified, teaches method of claim 29 as discussed above.
Simon further teaches non-woven, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraphs [0079] and [0156]).
Simon does not teach step a) comprises napping the wet-laid fibers.
Bainbridge, however, teaches napping the wet-laid fibers (Paragraphs [0153] and [0161]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include napping the wet-laid fibers, as taught by Bainbridge, to provide the article to have a high surface quality.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Bonk (U.S. Patent No. 4,101,026).
Regarding Claim 31, Simon, as modified, teaches method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Simon does not teach the wipe is perforated.
Winch, however, teaches the wipe is perforated (Col. 6, lines 16 – 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the wipe is perforated, as taught by Bonk, to provide an article that can be customized for individual use.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Pelletier (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0056337 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 32, Simon teaches a dissolvable wipe (Abstract) comprising a woven or non-woven, water soluble web that completely dissolves in water (Paragraph [0014]), wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraph [0079]), a stabilizing amount of an oil coated on or impregnating the water soluble (Paragraph [0156]), woven or non-woven web, and wherein the dissolvable wipe is coated or impregnated with a substance (Paragraph [0172]).
Simon does not explicitly teach a wet-laid fiber structure, wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains wet-laid, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers; wherein the dissolvable wipe is coated or impregnated with isopropyl alcohol.
Ramaratnam teaches a dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1; Paragraph [0011]) comprising a woven or non-woven web (Paragraphs [0036] and [0055]) which contains a wet-laid fiber structure (Paragraph [0032]), wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains wet-laid, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to explicitly include a wet-laid fiber structure, wherein the non-woven, water soluble web contains wet-laid, water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, as taught by Ramaratnam, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Pelletier further teaches the wipe is coated or impregnated with isopropyl alcohol (Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wipe of Simon to further include the wipe is coated or impregnated with isopropyl alcohol, as taught by Pelletier, to provide an article that can provide disinfecting, thus enhancing the cleaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated April 14, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6 – 7 and 9 – 21, 23 and 25 – 27 and 29 – 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Simon.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights