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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 9th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 9th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections based over Davy are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davy (US 2020/0144960 A1) as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab “Components of electromagnetic spectrum” as evidenced by Colorizer “Color pick, calculator and generator”.
In view of Claim 1, Davy discloses a window (Figure 1-5 & Paragraph 0021), comprising:
a rigid transparent panel including a transparent film, the transparent film including one or more luminophores (Fig. 1-2 & Paragraph 0018 – tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene);
the one or more luminophores operable to have a first peak absorbance of light in an ultraviolet region (Paragraph 0018 – active ingredients primarily absorb ultraviolet light); a
the window has an average visible transmission (AVT) of between 70-100% of incident light having wavelengths of between a range of between the visible light region (Paragraph 0018 – the visible light region overlaps a substantially portion of the range of 400-780 nm);
In regards to the limitation that, “the one or more of luminophores operable to have: a first peak absorbance of light in an ultraviolet (UV) region; a second peak absorbance of light in a first visible region; and a peak emission of visible light in a second visible region, wherein the one or more luminophores are configured to use the light absorbed in the first peak absorbance in the UV region and the light absorbed in the first visible region to emit the peak emission of visible light in the second visible region”. Applicant discloses a luminophore with these material properties corresponds to tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Instant Specification – Page 3, 3rd Paragraph). Davy discloses that one or more luminophores is tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Paragraph 0018). Therefore, Davy teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “the one or more of luminophores operable to have: a first peak absorbance of light in an ultraviolet (UV) region; a second peak absorbance of light in a first visible region; and a peak emission of visible light in a second visible region, wherein the one or more luminophores are configured to use the light absorbed in the first peak absorbance in the UV region and the light absorbed in the first visible region to emit the peak emission of visible light in the second visible region”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regards to the limitation that, “the one or more luminophores comprise a least one or more coumarins, naphthylamides, anthracenes, rubrenes, thiophenes, fluorenes, diazafluorenes, fluorenones, dicyanomethylenes, rhodamines, perlyenebisimides, or bipyridins”, the luminophore tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification (See Fig. 6A-B) comprises four coumarins at the periphery of the molecule.
In regards to the limitation, “wherein the transmitted visible light including light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by the one or more luminophores”, Davy does not disclose values of the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates a* and b* of the transmitted visible light being each between negative 30 and positive 30 but does disclose that the solar cells used in the window are donor/acceptor layers with peak absorbance in the range from 250-450 nm (Paragraph 0017). Applicant discloses a luminophore with these material properties corresponds to tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Instant Specification – Page 3, 3rd Paragraph). Davy discloses that one or more luminophores is tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Paragraph 0018). Therefore, Davy teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “wherein the transmitted visible light including light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by the one or more luminophore”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In further regards to this limitation, while Davy does not explicitly disclose values using the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates system such that a* and b* of the transmitted visible light being each between negative 30 and positive 30 but does disclose that the peak emission of the light harvesting element ranges from 500-1000 nm (Paragraph 0018). Peak emission of a material correlates directly to how color is perceived by the human eye. Thus, Davy does disclose that the luminophore can emit between the ranges of 500-1000 nm which completely covers the “red portion” of the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (See Annotated PrimaLuceLab electromagnetic spectrum, below). Thus, as evidenced by the electromagnetic spectrum, Davy’s window can be any possible shade of red in the electromagnetic spectrum, and any possibly shade of yellow and orange, and mostly any shade of green.
Annotated Electromagnetic Spectrum
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Colorizer’s calculator CIE L*a*b* values of 30 a to 30 b results in darkish red orange with a lightness value of 23 results in darker reds (See Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 1, below), additionally, Colorizer’s calculator CIE L*a*b* values of -26 a and 30 b and L 33 results in a dark green that has corresponding wavelength values above 500 nm (See Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 2, below).
Accordingly, as evidenced by this example, Davy’s transmitted visible light can includes light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by one or more luminophores.
Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 1
PNG
media_image2.png
146
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 2
PNG
media_image3.png
128
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 2, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Davy teaches that one or more solar cells can be mounted on an edge or a side surface of a window (Figure 4 & claim 27) or a solar array comprising one or more solar cells embedded within the window (Figure 2, #3 & Paragraph 0022).
In view of Claim 3, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Davy discloses that one or more solar cells are configured to absorb the peak emission of visible light emitted by the one or more luminophores and absorb the transmitted visible light; and absorption of the peak emission of visible light and the transmitted visible light by the one or more solar cells generates energy (Fig. 4 & claim 27 - Paragraph 0018).
In view of Claim 4, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Davy discloses sensors and other components that include hardware that are powered by the edge-mounted solar cells or the solar array (Paragraph 0014). Any sensor that’s powered by the solar cells or solar array would have to inherently be connected via wiring and thus would be in electrical communication via an electrical circuit.
In view of Claim 5, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Davy teaches an electrically dimmable assembly regulating transmission of visible and/or infrared electromagnetic radiation through the window in electrical communication with the one or more electrical circuits (Paragraph 0014).
In view of Claim 6, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Davy teaches that the electrically dimmable assembly is powered by the edge-mounted solar cell or the solar array (Paragraph 0005 & 0014-0015).
In view of Claim 7, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Davy teaches a low emission film layer coupled to the window for reducing transmission of infrared electromagnetic radiation through the window (Paragraph 0014-0015).
In view of Claim 8, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Davy teaches a charge storage device in electrical communication with the edge-mounted solar cell or the solar array (Paragraph 0014-0015).
In view of Claim 9, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Davy teaches one or more electrical components selected from the group consisting of light sensors, color sensors, humidity sensors, temperature sensors, occupancy sensors, motion sensors, cellular signal amplifiers, universal serial bus interfaces, and wireless communication elements (Claim 15), in electrical communication with one or more electrical circuits (Paragraph 0014-0015).
In view of Claim 10, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Davy teaches the window is mounted in edge-mounted insulation or mounted in a frame (Figure 1-2 & Paragraph 0022).
In view of Claim 11, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. As stated above, Davy discloses sensors and other components that include hardware that are powered by the edge-mounted solar cells or the solar array (Paragraph 0014). Any sensor or components that’s powered by the solar cells or solar array would have to inherently be connected via wiring and thus would be in electrical communication via an electrical circuit. Additionally, any power routed to said sensor/component would be considered “an electrically energized electrical circuit”.
In view of Claim 12, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Davy discloses that the one or more components with associated electrical circuits (Figure 2, #6) are directly adjacently positioned to the edge-mounted insulation that can be placed in a frame (Figure 1-2, #6 & Paragraph 0022). Any wiring associated with the components (sensors, etc.) that are routed to the edge mounted cells (Fig. 2, #7) would inherently be present within the edge-mounted insulation that can be arranged in the frame (Figure 2, #2).
In view of Claim 13, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Davy teaches that the rigid transparent panel at least comprises two or more layers of glass (Figure 1-2 - Paragraph 0018 & 0022).
In view of Claim 14, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Davy teaches that the window comprises a visibly transparent luminescent solar concentrator (Paragraph 0014). Pandy et al. was relied upon to disclose a photovoltaic device that may be selected to be transparent (Paragraph 0003).
In view of Claim 15, Davy discloses a method of making a window having a rigid transparent panel secured in a frame (Figure 1-5 - Paragraph 0006 & 0021), comprising:
providing a rigid transparent panel including a transparent film, the transparent film including one or more luminophores (Fig. 1-2 & Paragraph 0018 – tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene);
the window has an average visible transmission (AVT) of between 70-100% of incident light having wavelengths of between a range of between the visible light region (Paragraph 0018 – the visible light region overlaps a substantially portion of the range of 400-780 nm).
In regards to the limitation that, “the one or more of luminophores operable to have: a first peak absorbance of light in an ultraviolet (UV) region; a second peak absorbance of light in a first visible region; and a peak emission of visible light in a second visible region, wherein the one or more luminophores are configured to use the light absorbed in the first peak absorbance in the UV region and the light absorbed in the first visible region to emit the peak emission of visible light in the second visible region”. Applicant discloses a luminophore with these material properties corresponds to tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Instant Specification – Page 3, 3rd Paragraph). Davy discloses that one or more luminophores is tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Paragraph 0018). Therefore, Davy teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “the one or more of luminophores operable to have: a first peak absorbance of light in an ultraviolet (UV) region; a second peak absorbance of light in a first visible region; and a peak emission of visible light in a second visible region, wherein the one or more luminophores are configured to use the light absorbed in the first peak absorbance in the UV region and the light absorbed in the first visible region to emit the peak emission of visible light in the second visible region”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regards to the limitation that, “the one or more luminophores comprise a least one or more coumarins, naphthylamides, anthracenes, rubrenes, thiophenes, fluorenes, diazafluorenes, fluorenones, dicyanomethylenes, rhodamines, perlyenebisimides, or bipyridins”, the luminophore tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification (See Fig. 6A-B) comprises four coumarins at the periphery of the molecule.
In regards to the limitation, “wherein the transmitted visible light including light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by the one or more luminophores”, Davy does not disclose values of the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates a* and b* of the transmitted visible light being each between negative 30 and positive 30 but does disclose that the solar cells used in the window are donor/acceptor layers with peak absorbance in the range from 250-450 nm (Paragraph 0017). Applicant discloses a luminophore with these material properties corresponds to tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Instant Specification – Page 3, 3rd Paragraph). Davy discloses that one or more luminophores is tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Paragraph 0018). Therefore, Davy teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “wherein the transmitted visible light including light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by the one or more luminophore”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In further regards to this limitation, while Davy does not explicitly disclose values using the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates system such that a* and b* of the transmitted visible light being each between negative 30 and positive 30 but does disclose that the peak emission of the light harvesting element ranges from 500-1000 nm. Peak emission of a material correlates directly to how color is perceived by the human eye. Thus, Davy does disclose that the luminophore can emit between the ranges of 500-1000 nm which completely covers the “red portion” of the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (See Annotated PrimaLuceLab electromagnetic spectrum, below). Thus, as evidenced by the electromagnetic spectrum, Davy’s window can be any possible shade of red in the electromagnetic spectrum, and any possibly shade of yellow and orange, and mostly any shade of green.
Annotated Electromagnetic Spectrum
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Colorizer’s calculator CIE L*a*b* values of 30 a to 30 b results in darkish red orange with a lightness value of 23 results in darker reds (See Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 1, below), additionally, Colorizer’s calculator CIE L*a*b* values of -26 a and 30 b and L 33 results in a dark green that has corresponding wavelength values above 500 nm (See Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 2, below).
Accordingly, as evidenced by this example, Davy’s transmitted visible light can includes light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by one or more luminophores.
Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 1
PNG
media_image2.png
146
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 2
PNG
media_image3.png
128
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 16, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Davy teaches coupling one or more solar cells can be mounted on an edge or a side surface of a window (Figure 4 & claim 27) or coupling a solar array to the rigid transparent panel (Figure 2, #3 & Paragraph 0022).
In view of Claim 17, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Davy discloses sensors and other components that include hardware that are powered by the edge-mounted solar cells or the solar array (Paragraph 0014). Any sensor that’s powered by the solar cells or solar array would have to inherently be connected via wiring and thus would have to be electrically coupled via electrical circuits.
In view of Claim 18, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Davy teaches an electrically dimmable assembly regulating transmission of visible and/or infrared electromagnetic radiation through the window in electrical communication with the one or more electrical circuits (Paragraph 0014). The electrically dimmable assembly powered by the solar cells or solar array would have to inherently be electrically coupled by one or more electrical circuits.
Claims 19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davy (US 2020/0144960 A1) and Loo et al. (US 2018/0175313 A1) as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab “Components of electromagnetic spectrum” as evidenced by Colorizer “Color pick, calculator and generator”.
In view of Claim 19, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Davy teaches a solar array is coupled to the rigid transparent panel comprises coupling a visible transparent photovoltaic device to the rigid transparent panel (Figure 1-2, #3 & Paragraph 0022). Davy discloses that the photosensitive layer has exhibit peak absorbance in the range of 250-450 nm (Paragraph 0017) and that the visibly transparent photovoltaic device has an average visible transmission of 70-100% for visible light (Paragraph 0018 – visible light is from ~400-700 nm) and the visibly transparent photovoltaic device generates electrical power (Paragraph 0015).
Davy further discloses that these single junction photovoltaic devices employed in window inserts are further describe in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/577,965 which is incorporated by reference. Loo et al. discloses an anode and a cathode that are on opposite first and second surfaces of a photosensitive layer and in electrical communication with said photosensitive layer (Fig. 4, + & - electrodes).
In view of Claim 21, Davy as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 19. Loo et al. discloses that the anode and cathode transparent conducting oxides (Paragraph 0043 – ITO variants), transparent metal or metal (Paragraph 0043), and LiF or Ag (Paragraph 0043)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davy (US 2020/0144960 A1) and Loo et al. (US 2018/0175313 A1) as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab “Components of electromagnetic spectrum” as evidenced by Colorizer “Color pick, calculator and generator” in view of Davy et al. “Pairing of near-ultraviolet solar cells with electrochromic windows for smart management of the solar spectrum”.
In view of Claim 22, Davy and Loo et al. as evidenced by PrimaLuceLab and Colorizer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 19. Davy does not explicitly disclose that the second absorption peak has a full-width half-maximum of between 10-75 nm.
Davy et al. discloses a donor material with a second absorption peak between ~475-490 nm or ~500-550 nm, wherein the FWHM of these peaks are within a range of 10-75 nm (Figure 2c, D). Davy et al. teaches organic semiconductors with inherently narrow and tunable absorption offer the opportunity for wavelength-specific light harvesting (Page 1, 2nd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the donor material as disclosed by Davy et al. as the donor material of Pandy et al. photosensitive layer such that a second absorption peak between ~475-490 nm or ~500-550 nm has a FWHM within 10-75 nm for the advantage of having a configuration that offers wavelength-specific light harvesting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Davy does not disclose that the window has values of the CIE Lab* color coordinates a* and b* of the transmitted visible light each between negative 30 and positive 30 and an average visible transmission of between 35% and 95% of incident light having wavelengths between 400-780 nm. Applicant argues that the CIE color coordinate limitations not disclosed in Davy, expressly or inherently and this limitation is attempted to be supplied by combining Davy’s disclosed emission range with general wavelength/color information from PrimaLuceLab and selected examples from the Colorizer web utility. That evidence does not establish that the transmitted visible light of any Davy window necessarily falls with a* and b* values of plus or minus 30. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that they have not addressed the following in Davy ‘960. In the rejection of record while Davy does not disclose values of the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates a* and b* of the transmitted visible light being each between negative 30 and positive 30 but does disclose that the solar cells used in the window are donor/acceptor layers with peak absorbance in the range from 250-450 nm (Paragraph 0017). Applicant discloses a luminophore with these material properties corresponds to tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Instant Specification – Page 3, 3rd Paragraph). Davy discloses that one or more luminophores is tetrabenzofuranyldibenzocoronene (Paragraph 0018). Therefore, Davy teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “wherein the transmitted visible light including light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by the one or more luminophore”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Furthermore on this, Davy discloses the same configuration as Applicant (Compare Fig. 5 of Davy ‘960 with Fig. 13 of the instant application). Applicant has not addressed this in the rejection of record, nor in the arguments on why the same material would operate differently in the exact same configuration. PrimaLuceLab/Colorizer are simply there to provide evidence on “why Davy’s window would be this color”. Color coordinates themselves aren’t limiting in the sense Applicant has defined them, its just a way to define color, just like RBG or CMY etc. Again, if it’s the same material in the same configuration, why it would be a different color? For these reasons alone, this argument as unpersuasive, as they have not addressed how the crux/jist of the rejection is relying on Davy disclosing the exact same luminophore used in the exact same configuration as Applicants.
In further regards to this limitation, while Davy does not explicitly disclose values using the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates system such that a* and b* of the transmitted visible light being each between negative 30 and positive 30 but does disclose that the peak emission of the light harvesting element ranges from 500-1000 nm (Paragraph 0018). Peak emission of a material correlates directly to how color is perceived by the human eye. Thus, Davy does disclose that the luminophore can emit between the ranges of 500-1000 nm which completely covers the “red portion” of the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (See Annotated PrimaLuceLab electromagnetic spectrum, below). Thus, as evidenced by the electromagnetic spectrum, Davy’s window can be any possible shade of red in the electromagnetic spectrum, and any possibly shade of yellow and orange, and mostly any shade of green.
Annotated Electromagnetic Spectrum
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Colorizer’s calculator CIE L*a*b* values of 30 a to 30 b results in darkish red orange with a lightness value of 23 results in darker reds (See Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 1, below), additionally, Colorizer’s calculator CIE L*a*b* values of -26 a and 30 b and L 33 results in a dark green that has corresponding wavelength values above 500 nm (See Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 2, below).
Accordingly, as evidenced by this example, Davy’s transmitted visible light can includes light that has been absorbed in the first visible region and re-emitted in the second visible region by one or more luminophores. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 1
PNG
media_image2.png
146
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Colorizer CIE L*a*b example 2
PNG
media_image3.png
128
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
