DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed March 9, 2026 are entered and have
been fully considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 2/08/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0016468 application as 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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. Claims 1, 7, and 14 are directed to a weight average molecular weight for the glycidyl modified ethylene-octene copolymer, but in the instant specification the molecular weight is only referred to as an average molecular weight and there is no support for it being a weight average molecular weight.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected for their dependency on claims 1, 7, and 14.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al, CN101792596A in view of Aoki et al, JPH10182742A.
Regarding claim 1, Hao teaches a polymer composition comprising a recycled polyamide, virgin polyamide (which is interpreted to mean the same as the claimed new polyamide), fiberglass, and a toughening agent, ¶¶[0011-0017]. The toughening agent can be selected as ethylene-octene copolymer-glycidyl methacrylate graft ¶[0025]. Applicant states in ¶[45] of the instant specification that glass fiber is considered an inorganic filler, therefore Hao’s composition anticipates the claim.
Hao does not teach the weight average molecular weight of the GMA-EOP toughening agent.
Aoki discloses an ethylene-based polymer for hollow articles that have good moldability, fluidity, and impact characteristics, ¶¶[0001, 0027]. Aoki further discloses that generally ethylene polymers with a larger weight-average molecular weight have higher melt tension, larger swell, and better impact resistance and environmental stress cracking resistance, ¶[0002]. The ethylene polymer may be a copolymer of ethylene and an alpha olefin such as 1-octene, ¶[0009], and preferably, the weight average molecular weight is 100,000-400,000 g/mol, ¶[0013], which overlaps with the claimed range. Additionally, when the weight-average molecular weight is less than 100,000 g/mol the tensile strength during melting is low, resulting in significant sagging during molding, and the solid properties such as impact resistance are inferior; if it is greater than 400,000 g/mol the MFR (Moldability Factor) is low and the moldability is poor, ¶[0013]. Therefore this molecular weight range is advantageous for moldability and impact properties.
Hao is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of impact modified polyamide compositions, and Aoki is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of thermoplastic compositions for articles with good impact characteristics.
The skilled artisan will look to related references for information the primary reference does not include such as the weight average molecular weight of ethylene-based copolymers for effective impact resistance properties.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the invention of Hao using a glycidyl modified ethylene-octene copolymer toughening agent with a weight average molecular weight of 100,000-400,000 g/mol which overlaps with the claimed range, because this range of weight average molecular weight for the ethylene copolymer is the preferable range to improve properties such as impact resistance and the copolymer with in this range will not have sagging or poor moldability, as disclosed by Aoki.
Regarding claim 2, this claim is directed to a source of the recycled polyamide being marine waste, and does not further limit the structure of the composition. The claimed polyamide composition is defined by its structure, not by its source. Applicant does not show in the as-filed specification that polyamide from marine waste is structurally or functionally different than other polyamide waste sources. Hao teaches the recycled polyamide comes from automotive parts ¶[0008]. Absent evidence that polyamide from marine waste is structurally different, the polyamide source does not patentably distinguish the claimed composition. Therefore, Hao anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Hao further teaches that the composition comprises 10-95 wt.% recycled polyamide, 0-85 wt.% virgin polyamide, 5-40 wt.% fiberglass, and 0-30 wt.% toughening agent which can be selected as ethylene-octene copolymer-glycidyl methacrylate graft ¶¶[0011-0017, 0025]. These ranges overlap with the claimed weight percent ranges; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al, CN101792596A in view of Aoki et al, JPH10182742A further in view of Tsunoda et al, JP2009161748A.
Regarding claims 4-5, Hao modified by Aoki teaches the invention according to claim 1 as explained above. Hao teaches the polyamide composition is for making automotive parts and electronic parts ¶[0034]. Hao further teaches the virgin polyamide comprises PA6 ¶[0060], but Hao is silent to the addition of modified polyamides with a benzene ring.
Tsunoda discloses a thermoplastic resin composition for electronic equipment and automotive parts ¶[0002] comprising polyamides ¶[0016] and alpha-olefin impact modifiers including ethylene-octene copolymers and the glycidyl-ester grafted versions thereof, ¶[0064]. Tsunoda further discloses that among the polyamides, MXD6 is preferably used from the viewpoint of moldability, heat resistance, and surface appearance of the product ¶[0016]. It is also disclosed that it is preferable to blend the MXD6 with an aliphatic polyamide, such as PA6, to shorten the molding cycle because the MXD6 has a slower crystallization rate ¶[0017].
Tsunoda is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of polyamide resin compositions for automotive and electronic parts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the MXD6/PA6 blend of Tsunoda with the virgin polyamide in the composition of Hao modified by Aoki with the motivation of improving the moldability, heat resistance, and surface appearance while shortening the molding cycle of the composition as disclosed by Tsunoda.
Regarding claim 6, Tsunoda discloses that the polyamide blend comprises 20 wt.% or more of the MXD6 ¶[0016], this is out of 100 wt.% of the polyamide only, not the entire composition. Applying this recommended amount to Hao’s total polyamide of recycled and virgin material, 10-95 wt.% ¶¶[0011-0012], the MXD6 would be 2-19 wt.% at a minimum (this is using the lowest amount of 20%), which overlaps with the claimed range. The remaining balance would be PA6, which after subtracting the minimum required recycled polyamide and the MXD6 from the highest possible amount, 95%-10%-19%= 66 wt.%, which is the highest amount of virgin PA6 for Hao’s composition. Therefore the range of 1-66 wt.% of virgin PA6 overlaps with the claimed range.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al, CN101792596A in view of Aoki et al, JPH10182742A further in view of Topoulos, G., US8859665 .
Regarding claim 7, Hao teaches a polymer composition comprising a
recycled polyamide, virgin polyamide (which is interpreted to mean the same as the claimed new polyamide), fiberglass, and a toughening agent, ¶¶[0011-0017]. The toughening agent can be selected as ethylene-octene copolymer-glycidyl methacrylate graft ¶[0025]. Applicant states in ¶[45] of the instant specification that glass fiber is considered an inorganic filler, therefore Hao’s composition satisfies the limitation.
Hao teaches the polyamide composition is for making electronic parts ¶[0034], but does not teach the electronic device as claimed, nor the weight average molecular weight of the GMA-EOP toughening agent.
Aoki discloses an ethylene-based polymer for hollow articles that have good moldability, fluidity, and impact characteristics, ¶¶[0001, 0027]. Aoki further discloses that generally ethylene polymers with a larger weight-average molecular weight have higher melt tension, larger swell, and better impact resistance and environmental stress cracking resistance, ¶[0002]. The ethylene polymer may be a copolymer of ethylene and an alpha olefin such as 1-octene, ¶[0009], and preferably, the weight average molecular weight is 100,000-400,000 g/mol, ¶[0013], which overlaps with the claimed range. Additionally, when the weight-average molecular weight is less than 100,000 g/mol the tensile strength during melting is low, resulting in significant sagging during molding, and the solid properties such as impact resistance are inferior; if it is greater than 400,000 g/mol the MFR (Moldability Factor) is low and the moldability is poor, ¶[0013]. Therefore this molecular weight range is advantageous for moldability and impact properties.
Topoulos discloses a polyamide housing for portable electronic devices such as mobile phones and tablets, abstract and Col. 1 lines 19-20. Topoulos explains that the housing can be a backbone component of the device, which is meant as a structural component onto which other components of the device are mounted, such as electronics, microprocessors, screens, keyboards and keypads, antennas, battery sockets. The backbone may be an interior component that is not visible from the exterior of the phone and provides protection for internal components, Col. 2 lines 35-40. Topoulos does not describe the electronic device explicitly like the claim, but does specifically use mobile phones as an example of the device. Mobile phones are known to have a display, and Topoulos describes the housing Col. 2 lines 48-51, which for mobile phones are known to have an open inner space for the components of the phone to lay inside. The backbone that Topoulos describes reads on the claimed support member, and the components listed above that are mounted to the backbone read on the substrate portion in the housing that is supported by the support member.
Topoulos discloses that thermoplastic polyamide compositions are desirable for housings of electronic devices because of their good physical properties and that they may be conveniently and flexibly molded into a variety of articles of varying degrees of complexity and intricacy and that housings with excellent stiffness and impact resistance are desirable, Col. 1 lines 34-45. Topoulos’ polyamide compositions comprise polyamides such as PA6 and MXD6 among others, Col. 3 lines 22-47, fiber reinforcement such as fiberglass, Col. 4 lines 10-12, and alpha-olefin impact modifiers, Col. 4 lines 38-40. While Topoulos nor Hao explicitly describe the polyamide as non-conductive, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan because polyamides are used in electronics due to their heat resistance and non-conductive properties.
Hao and Topoulos are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of polyamide compositions for electronic parts. Aoki is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of thermoplastic compositions for articles with good impact characteristics.
The skilled artisan will look to related references for information the primary reference does not include such as the weight average molecular weight of ethylene-based copolymers for effective impact resistance properties. And it is prima facie obvious to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the composition of Hao with a GMA-EOP of a weight average molecular weight of 100,000-400,000 g/mol because this is the molecular weight range to improve impact properties and prevent poor moldability; and further use the composition as a backbone (support member) for an electronic device to protect the internal components from impact because it is a glass fiber reinforced, impact modified polyamide composition suitable for electronic parts and would produce the predictable result of an impact modified backbone for an electronic device with improved sustainability due to the use of recycled material.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is directed to a source of the recycled polyamide being marine waste, and does not further limit the structure of the composition. The claimed polyamide composition is defined by its structure, not by its source. Applicant does not show in the as-filed specification that polyamide from marine waste is structurally or functionally different than other polyamide waste sources. Hao teaches the recycled polyamide comes from automotive parts ¶[0008]. Absent evidence that polyamide from marine waste is structurally different, the polyamide source does not patentably distinguish the claimed composition. Therefore, Hao satisfies this claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al, CN101792596A in view of Aoki et al, JPH10182742A further in view of Topoulos, G., US8859665 further in view of Tsunoda et al, JP2009161748A .
Regarding claim 9, Hao in view of Aoki and further in view of Topoulos teaches the invention according to claim 7 as explained above. Hao teaches the polyamide composition is for making automotive parts and electronic parts ¶[0034]. Hao further teaches the virgin polyamide comprises PA6 ¶[0060], but Hao is silent to the addition of modified polyamides with a benzene ring.
Tsunoda discloses a thermoplastic resin composition for electronic equipment and automotive parts ¶[0002] comprising polyamides ¶[0016] and alpha-olefin impact modifiers including ethylene-octene copolymers and the glycidyl-ester grafted versions thereof, ¶[0064]. Tsunoda further discloses that among the polyamides, MXD6 is more preferably used from the viewpoint of moldability, heat resistance, and surface appearance of the product ¶[0016]. It is also disclosed that it is preferable to blend the MXD6 with an aliphatic polyamide, such as PA6, to shorten the molding cycle because the MXD6 has a slower crystallization rate ¶[0017].
Tsunoda is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of polyamide resin compositions for automotive and electronic parts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the MXD6/PA6 blend of Tsunoda with the virgin polyamide in the composition of modified Hao with the motivation of improving the moldability, heat resistance, and surface appearance while shortening the molding cycle of the composition as disclosed by Tsunoda.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al, CN101792596A in view of Aoki et al, JPH10182742A further in view of Topoulos, G., US8859665.
Regarding claim 14, Hao teaches a polymer composition comprising a
recycled polyamide, virgin polyamide (which is interpreted to mean the same as the claimed new polyamide), fiberglass, and a toughening agent, ¶¶[0011-0017]. The toughening agent can be selected as ethylene-octene copolymer-glycidyl methacrylate graft ¶[0025]. Applicant states in ¶[45] of the instant specification that glass fiber is considered an inorganic filler, therefore Hao’s composition satisfies the limitation. Hao teaches the polyamide composition is for making electronic parts ¶[0034], but does not teach the protective case as claimed nor does Hao teach the weight average molecular weight of the glycidyl modified ethylene-octene polymer.
Aoki discloses an ethylene-based polymer for hollow articles that have good moldability, fluidity, and impact characteristics, ¶¶[0001, 0027]. Aoki further discloses that generally ethylene polymers with a larger weight-average molecular weight have higher melt tension, larger swell, and better impact resistance and environmental stress cracking resistance, ¶[0002]. The ethylene polymer may be a copolymer of ethylene and an alpha olefin such as 1-octene, ¶[0009], and preferably, the weight average molecular weight is 100,000-400,000 g/mol, ¶[0013], which overlaps with the claimed range. Additionally, when the weight-average molecular weight is less than 100,000 g/mol the tensile strength during melting is low, resulting in significant sagging during molding, and the solid properties such as impact resistance are inferior; if it is greater than 400,000 g/mol the MFR (Moldability Factor) is low and the moldability is poor, ¶[0013]. Therefore this molecular weight range is advantageous for moldability and impact properties.
Topoulos discloses a polyamide housing for portable electronic devices, abstract. Topoulos also discloses that thermoplastic polyamide compositions are desirable for housings of electronic devices because of their good physical properties and that they may be conveniently and flexibly molded into a variety of articles of varying degrees of complexity and intricacy and that housings with excellent stiffness and impact resistance are desirable, Col. 1 lines 34-45. Topoulos’ polyamide compositions comprise polyamides such as PA6 and MXD6 among others, Col. 3 lines 22-47, fiber reinforcement such as fiberglass, Col. 4 lines 10-12, and alpha-olefin impact modifiers, Col. 4 lines 38-40. Topoulos does not explicitly call the housing a protective case as claimed, but explains that the housing is a cover or backbone of the device and it provides protection for internal components from impact and contamination, and further discloses housing components such as covers may also provide substantial or primary structural support for and protection against impact of certain components having exposure to the exterior of the device such as screens and/or antennas, Col. 2 lines 32-47. The description of Topoulos’ housing reads on the claimed protective case.
Hao and Topoulos are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of polyamide compositions for electronic parts. Aoki is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of thermoplastic compositions for articles with good impact characteristics.
The skilled artisan will look to related references for information the primary reference does not include such as the weight average molecular weight of ethylene-based copolymers for effective impact resistance properties. And it is prima facie obvious to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the composition of Hao with a GMA-EOP of a weight average molecular weight of 100,000-400,000 g/mol because this is the molecular weight range to improve impact properties and prevent poor moldability; and further use the composition as a housing (protective case) for an electronic device to protect it from external impact because it is a glass fiber reinforced, impact modified polyamide composition suitable for electronic parts and would produce the predictable result of an impact modified housing for an electronic device with improved sustainability due to the use of recycled material.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is directed to a source of the recycled polyamide being marine waste, and does not further limit the structure of the composition. The claimed polyamide composition is defined by its structure, not by its source. Applicant does not show in the as-filed specification that polyamide from marine waste is structurally or functionally different than other polyamide waste sources. Hao teaches the recycled polyamide comes from automotive parts ¶[0008]. Absent evidence that polyamide from marine waste is structurally different, the polyamide source does not patentably distinguish the claimed composition. Therefore, Hao satisfies this claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al, CN101792596A in view of Aoki et al, JPH10182742A further in view of Topoulos,G. US8859665 further in view of Tsunoda et al, JP2009161748A.
Regarding claim 16, Hao in view of Aoki further in view of Topoulos teaches the invention according to claim 14 as explained above. Hao teaches the polyamide composition is for making automotive parts and electronic parts ¶[0034]. Hao further teaches the virgin polyamide comprises PA6 ¶[0060], but Hao is silent to the addition of modified polyamides with a benzene ring.
Tsunoda discloses a thermoplastic resin composition for electronic equipment and automotive parts ¶[0002] comprising polyamides ¶[0016] and alpha-olefin impact modifiers including ethylene-octene copolymers and the glycidyl-ester grafted versions thereof, ¶[0064]. Tsunoda further discloses that among the polyamides, MXD6 is more preferably used from the viewpoint of moldability, heat resistance, and surface appearance of the product ¶[0016]. It is also disclosed that it is preferable to blend the MXD6 with an aliphatic polyamide, such as PA6, to shorten the molding cycle because the MXD6 has a slower crystallization rate ¶[0017].
Hao and Tsunoda are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of polyamide resin compositions for automotive and electronic parts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the MXD6/PA6 blend of Tsunoda with the virgin polyamide in the composition of modified Hao with the motivation of improving the moldability, heat resistance, and surface appearance while shortening the molding cycle of the composition as disclosed by Tsunoda.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 10-13 and 17-20 are allowable for reasons given in the previous office action dated 12/08/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to include a weight average molecular weight for the GMA-EOP, but there is no support for this limitation in the instant specification, applicant describes the molecular weight as an average molecular weight. Applicant’s argument that the references provided in the remarks prove that the range refers to a weight average and not a number average is unconvincing and insufficient. The references provided by applicant do not give a molecular weight for the actual GMA-EOP. In KR101632101B1 (US9279052), KR20220053202A, and KR102076210B1 the number average molecular weights given are for the glycols and in KR20120093004 the weight average molecular weight is for the polylactic acid. Therefore these references do not teach or disclose a molecular weight for the GMA-EOP, nor do they suggest the claimed range is a weight average molecular weight.
Applicant’s argument that Mn only refers to low numbers of several hundred to several thousand and Mw refer to higher numbers of tens of thousands to millions is unsupported speculation on applicant’s behalf and therefore not persuasive. There is no generally accepted rule that Mn must only refer to lower weights and Mw refer to higher weights. Examiner found at least two references where the number average molecular weight ranged in the thousands to hundreds of thousands for ethylene copolymers. For example US20070255007 discloses ethylene copolymers with a Mn of 1,000-300,000 g/mol ¶[0037], and in WO2012098185, it also discloses ethylene copolymers with 1-octene that have a Mn of 10,000-500,000 g/mol, ¶[0048]. Therefore applicant’s assertion that the skilled person would recognize the range disclosed in the specification must be a weight average molecular weight is false. The ethylene copolymer impact modifier can have a broad weight average molecular weight or number average molecular weight, and as explained in the interview of 2/12/2026, applicant would have to file a 132 declaration explaining how the original specification supports the amendment.
Regarding the previous 102 and 103 rejections, the 102 rejection is withdrawn because of the amendment and has been changed to a 103 rejection over Hao in view of Aoki. Aoki teaches an ethylene polymer that can be a copolymer with 1-octene for making hollow articles where the preferred weight average molecular weight is 100,000-400,000 g/mol and discloses this range in advantageous because it prevents sagging while molding, poor moldability, and inferior impact characteristics, therefore it would be obvious to use a GMA-EOP toughener within this weight average molecular weight range because it is the range for imparting good impact and moldability as disclosed by Aoki.
The remaining 103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2004043723, Tasaka M., is directed to a thermoplastic elastomer composition which comprises a thermoplastic resin (e) which can be an ethylene-octene copolymer, and the weight average molecular weight is preferably 10,000-250,000 g/mol ¶¶[0074-0075]. Outside of this range moldability and mechanical properties decline, ¶[0075]. Therefore this reference is relevant to the claimed molecular weight range for the GMA-EOP.
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 VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights