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
This Office action is in reply to the amendment filed on 01/29/2026; after entry of this amendment, claims 1-9 are currently pending in this Application with claims 10-14 being cancelled.
Any rejection and/or objection made in the previous Office action and not repeated below is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,802,878 to Monroe in view of CN 1188465 to Monroe et al. (hereinafter Monroe 2ⁿᵈ).
With respect to claim 1, Monroe teaches sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles comprising alpha alumina, Gd2O3, ZnO and a few other metal oxides, and method of making them (Monroe, Abstract).
In one aspect/embodiment, Monroe teaches a concentration of 55-97% by weight of alpha alumina in the sintered abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 2, lines 5-15). This range, in particular, the 97% by weight, is close to the lower limit of the claimed range of "98.0% by mass or more", and according to MPEP 2144.05 "Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, Monroe discloses a general concentration of "at least" 60% by weight of Al2O3 in the alpha abrasive particles (col. 3, lines 10-16), and "at least" 60% includes any and all values above 60%. MPEP 2144.05 (I) "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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, the reference is taken to render the claimed concentration of "98.0% by
mass or more" of Al2O3 obvious. This is, especially, in light of the fact that according to MPEP 2123 "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. V. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Furthermore, Monroe teaches the use of 0.2 to 8% by weight, in some embodiments 1 to 5% by weight, of ZnO in the sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 2, lines 5-15), and both of these ranges overlap with the claimed range of 0.02- 1.55 parts by mass; ZnO is taken to render the claimed "at least one metal" as recited in lines 2-3 and 9-11 of the claim obvious.
Moreover, Monroe teaches the use of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide and sodium oxide to alter the physical and/or chemical properties of the sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 6, lines 10-60). Some of the preferred embodiments of the reference teaches a concentration of between 0-3.5% by weight, and most of said embodiments disclose 1.0 to 1.5% by weight of Y2O3 (Monroe, Tables 2 and 6). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the primary reference renders the claimed concentration of 0.01 to 1.35 for yttrium oxide obvious based on overlapping ranges, especially in light of the fact that obtaining an optimum and workable range of Y2O3 concentration can be achieved through routine experimentation motivated by the fact that the amount of metal oxides such as yttrium oxide in the initial mixture, i.e. precursor, and/or impregnation composition depends on the desired composition and/or properties of the sintered abrasive particle, as well as on the effect or role the additive may have on or play in the process used to make the abrasive particle (Monroe, col. 6, lines 17-30) and further motivated by the fact that the most of the most preferred embodiments of Monroe, i.e. most of the Examples, are directed to the use of an overlapping range of concentration of Y2O3 compared to what is claimed.
Monroe discloses the use of sodium oxide, and although the primary reference discloses that such a metal oxide alters the physical and chemical properties of the abrasive particle (Monroe, col. 6, lines 17-54), the primary reference is silent as to the specific concentration of this metal oxide.
Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, also, directed to sintered abrasive particles of high concentration of alpha alumina, wherein Na2O is disclosed as an oxide modifier whose presence in said abrasive particles offers significant advantages as a sintering aid to enhance densification of the particles (Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, [0009]-[0011], and [0065] in page 21), discloses the use of 0.01-1.0 wt% of Na₂O (Monroe 2nd, [0011] and [0065]). Additionally, Monroe 2ⁿᵈ discloses the presence/use of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide, and the fact that the abrasive grains are of alpha alumina ceramic abrasive containing about 85.0-99.6 wt% of AI2O3 (Monroe 2nd, [0009]-[0011] and [0066]). Therefore, Monroe 2ⁿᵈ is from the same field of art and endeavor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Monroe, the primary reference who teaches the use of Na₂O, to utilize a concentration of about 0.01-1.0 wt% of Na₂O, as that taught by Monroe 2nd, with the aim of increasing the density of the abrasive grains. It is noted Monroe 2ⁿᵈ clearly implies that the use of higher concentrations of Na2O may have detrimental effect (Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, [0065]).
It is noted that Monroe, the primary reference, teaches a method of manufacturing sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles and discloses the use of precursor of the components such as precursor for alumina (Monroe, col. 4, lines 62-67), precursor of the metal oxide additives (Monroe, col. 6, lines 1-2 and 30-35; and col. 11, lines 9-20) as well as the initial/precursor composition which would eventually result in the sintered alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, cols. 4-12).
With respect to claim 2, Monroe teaches sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles comprising alpha alumina, Gd2O₃, ZnO and a few other metal oxides, and method of making them (Monroe, Abstract).
In one aspect/embodiment, Monroe teaches a concentration of 55-97% by weight of alpha alumina in the sintered abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 2, lines 5-15). This range, in particular, the 97% by weight, is close to the lower limit of the claimed range of "98.0% by mass or more", and according to MPEP 2144.05 "Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, Monroe discloses a general concentration of "at least" 60% by weight of Al2O3 in the alpha abrasive particles (col. 3, lines 10-16), and "at least" 60% includes any and all values above 60%. MPEP 2144.05 (I) "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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, the reference is taken to render the claimed concentration of "98.0% by mass or more" of an oxide of aluminum obvious. This is, especially, in light of the fact that according to MPEP 2123 "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. V. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Furthermore, Monroe teaches the use of 0.2 to 8% by weight, in some embodiments 1 to 5% by weight, of ZnO in the sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 2, lines 5-15), and both of these ranges overlap with the claimed range of 0.02- 1.55 parts by mass; ZnO is taken to render the claimed "at least one metal" as recited in lines 2-3 and 9-11 of the claim obvious.
Moreover, Monroe teaches the use of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide and sodium oxide to alter the physical and/or chemical properties of the sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 6, lines 10-60). Some of the preferred embodiments of the reference teaches a concentration of between 0-3.5% by weight, and most of said embodiments disclose 1.0 to 1.5% by weight of Y2O3 (Monroe, Tables 2 and 6). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the primary reference renders the claimed concentration of 0.01 to 1.35 for yttrium oxide obvious based on overlapping ranges, especially in light of the fact that obtaining an optimum and workable range of yttrium oxide concentration can be achieved through routine experimentation motivated by the fact that the amount of metal oxides such as yttrium oxide in the initial mixture, i.e. precursor, and/or impregnation composition depends on the desired composition and/or properties of the sintered abrasive particle, as well as on the effect or role the additive may have on or play in the process used to make the abrasive particle (Monroe, col. 6, lines 17-30) and further motivated by the fact that the most of the most preferred embodiments of Monroe, i.e. most of the Examples, are directed to the use of an overlapping range of concentration of yttrium oxide compared to what is claimed.
Monroe discloses the use of sodium oxide, and although the primary reference discloses that such a metal oxide alters the physical and chemical properties of the abrasive particle (Monroe, col. 6, lines 17-54), the primary reference is silent as to the specific concentration of this metal oxide.
Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, also, directed to sintered abrasive particles of high concentration of alpha alumina, wherein Na2O is disclosed as an oxide modifier whose presence in said abrasive particles offers significant advantages as a sintering aid to enhance densification of the particles (Monroe 2nd, [0009]-[0011], and [0065] in page 21), discloses the use of 0.01-1.0 wt% of Na₂O (Monroe 2nd, [0011] and [0065]). Additionally, Monroe 2ⁿᵈ discloses the presence/use of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide, and the fact that the abrasive grains are of alpha alumina ceramic abrasive containing about 85.0-99.6 wt% of AI2O3 (Monroe 2nd, [0009]-[0011] and [0066]). Therefore, Monroe 2ⁿᵈ is from the same field of art and endeavor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Monroe, the primary reference who teaches the use of Na₂O, to utilize a concentration of about 0.01-1.0 wt% of Na₂O, as that taught by Monroe 2nd, with the aim of increasing the density of the abrasive grains. It is noted Monroe 2ⁿᵈ clearly implies that the use of higher concentrations of Na2O may have detrimental effect (Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, [0065]).
It is noted that Monroe, the primary reference, teaches a method of manufacturing sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles and discloses the use of precursor of the components such as precursor for alumina (Monroe, col. 4, lines 62-67), precursor of the metal oxide additives (Monroe, col. 6, lines 1-2 and 30-35; and col. 11, lines 9-20) as well as the initial/precursor composition which would eventually result in the sintered alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, cols. 4-12).
Furthermore, Monroe, the primary reference, is seen to broadly renders the use of yttrium acetate tetrahydrate obvious due to the fact that the reference, specifically, discloses the use of metal salt as the precursor for metal oxide modifier additives such as yttrium oxide, and discloses metal acetates as an example of such salts (Monroe, col. 6, lines 1-35) which would broadly render the use of a yttrium acetate tetrahydrate obvious (Monroe, col. 7, line 9). It is important to note that Monroe 2nd, also, teaches the use of metal acetates as a precursor to modifiers and/or additives (Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, [0064] and [0081]).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because as detailed out above, Monroe, the primary reference, is directed to sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, throughout the reference, for example, abstract; col. 2, lines 5-27).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Monroe, i.e. the primary reference, discloses a method for manufacturing sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, cols. 4-11) which includes the formation of a precursor by forming a dispersion of the precursor of alumina and adding other components, forming precursor particles and firing them.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of references renders the claim obvious this is, in particular, because Monroe, i.e. the primary reference, teaches a method involving the use of boehmite, i.e. precursor for alpha alumina (Monroe, col. 2, lines 65-67), and impregnating the precursor particles with a source of metal oxides of materials such as ZnO, yttrium oxide, sodium oxide, a few more or a combination thereof, wherein the source could be in the form of oxide and/or metal salt (Monroe, col. 2, lines 27-63; col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 14).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Monroe, the primary reference, recognizes the use of metal salt (Monroe, col. 5, line 30 to column 7, line 14) of the metal oxide additives such as yttrium oxide, and discloses the use of metal salts such as acetate, for example, yttrium acetate (Monroe, col. 7, line 9).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Monroe, i.e. the primary reference, teaches a sintering temperature of from about 1200°C to about 1650°C (Monroe, col. 11, lines 65-67).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Monroe, the primary reference, teaches a true (i.e. absolute) density of abrasive particles to be at least 95%, 96%, 97%, or even at least 99% of theoretical density (Monroe, col. 13, lines 1-5). When the true density of abrasive particles fully encompasses the claimed relative density, it is expected of the reference to render the "relative" density of the claimed abrasive particles obvious.
With respect to claim 9, Monroe teaches sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles comprising alpha alumina, Gd2O₃, ZnO and a few other metal oxides, and method of making them (Monroe, Abstract).
In one aspect/embodiment, Monroe teaches a concentration of 55-97% by weight of alpha alumina in the sintered abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 2, lines 5-15). This range, in particular, the 97% by weight, is close to the lower limit of the claimed range of "98.0% by mass or more", and according to MPEP 2144.05 "Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, Monroe discloses a general concentration of "at least" 60% by weight of Al2O3 in the alpha abrasive particles (col. 3, lines 10-16), and "at least" 60% includes any and all values above 60%. MPEP 2144.05 (I) "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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, the reference is taken to render the claimed concentration of "98.0% by mass or more" of an oxide of aluminum obvious. This is, especially, in light of the fact that according to MPEP 2123 "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. V. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Furthermore, Monroe teaches the use of 0.2 to 8% by weight, in some
embodiments 1 to 5% by weight, of ZnO in the sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 2, lines 5-15), and both of these ranges overlap with the claimed range of 0.02- 1.55 parts by mass; ZnO is taken to render the claimed "at least one metal" as recited in lines 2-3 and 9-11 of the claim obvious.
Moreover, Monroe teaches the use of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide and sodium oxide to alter the physical and/or chemical properties of the sintered alpha alumina abrasive particles (Monroe, col. 6, lines 10-60). Some of the preferred embodiments of the reference teaches a concentration of between 0-3.5% by weight, and most of said embodiments disclose 1.0 to 1.5% by weight of Y2O3 (Monroe, Tables 2 and 6). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the primary reference renders the claimed concentration of 0.01 to 1.35 for yttrium oxide obvious based on overlapping ranges, especially in light of the fact that obtaining an optimum and workable range of yttrium oxide concentration can be achieved through routine experimentation motivated by the fact that the amount of metal oxides such as yttrium oxide in the initial mixture, i.e. precursor, and/or impregnation composition depends on the desired composition and/or properties of the sintered abrasive particle, as well as on the effect or role the additive may have on or play in the process used to make the abrasive particle (Monroe, col. 6, lines 17-30) and further motivated by the fact that the most of the most preferred embodiments of Monroe, i.e. most of the Examples, are directed to the use of an overlapping range of concentration of yttrium oxide compared to what is claimed.
Monroe discloses the use of sodium oxide, and although the primary reference discloses that such a metal oxide alters the physical and chemical properties of the abrasive particle (Monroe, col. 6, lines 17-54), the primary reference is silent as to the concentration of this metal oxide.
Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, also, directed to sintered abrasive particles of high concentration of alpha alumina, wherein Na2O is disclosed as an oxide modifier whose presence in said abrasive particles offers significant advantages as a sintering aid to enhance
densification of the particles (Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, [0009]-[0011], and [0065] in page 21), discloses the use of 0.01-1.0 wt% of Na₂O (Monroe 2nd, [0011] and [0065]). Additionally, Monroe 2ⁿᵈ discloses the presence/use of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide, and the fact that the abrasive grains are of alpha alumina ceramic abrasive containing about 85.0-99.6 wt% of AI2O3 (Monroe 2nd, [0009]-[0011] and [0066]). Therefore, Monroe 2ⁿᵈ is from the same field of art and endeavor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Monroe, the primary reference who teaches the use of Na₂O, to utilize a concentration of about 0.01-1.0 wt% of Na₂O, as that taught by Monroe 2nd, with the aim of increasing the density of the abrasive grains. It is noted Monroe 2nd clearly implies that the use of higher concentrations of Na2O may have detrimental effect (Monroe 2ⁿᵈ, [0065]).
Moreover, Monroe, the primary reference, teaches a true (i.e. absolute) density of abrasive particles to be at least 95%, 96%, 97%, or even at least 99% of theoretical density (Monroe, col. 13, lines 1-5). When the true density of abrasive particles fully encompasses the claimed relative density, it is expected of the reference to render the "relative" density of the claimed abrasive particles obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted Monroe 2nd discloses the abrasive grains contain, based on the total weight of the abrasive grains, about 0.1-1.0 wt% alkali metal oxides in paragraph [0011], but alkali metal oxides including Na2O and K2O as typical examples in [0065] of Monroe 2nd should be understood simply as one kind of optional additive disclosed in [0063] of Monroe 2nd (Remarks, page 6). Applicant has, then, asserted such optional additives include metal oxides, and metal oxides may include zinc oxide (ZnO) and gadlinium oxide (Ga2O3) (Remarks page 6).
Applicant has, then, asserted Monroe includes 1-15 wt% of Gd2O3 and 0.2-8 wt% of ZnO; Applicant asserted the total content of Gd2O3 and ZnO amounts to at least 1.2 wt% (Remarks, page 6).
Applicant has, then, concluded one of ordinary skill in the art would not have applied the teachings of Monroe 2nd to Monroe because Monroe 2nd teaches Na2O as one kind of a metal oxide including Ga2O3 and ZnO, and Applicant has asserted this is evidenced by the disclosure in [0065] of Monroe 2nd that discloses alpha alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains contain at least about 0.1 wt% but not more than about 1.0 wt% metal oxides (Remarks, page 6). Applicant has asserted Monroe teaches particles including alpha-alumina, Gd2O3 and ZnO, while Monroe 2nd teaches particles including alpha-alumina, silica, and iron oxide (Remarks, page 6). Thus, Applicant has asserted other metal oxides taught by Monroe do not include Ga2O3 and ZnO while the other metal oxides taught by Monroe 2nd include Ga2O3 and ZnO where the upper limit for the amount of the other metal oxides is 1.0 wt% (Remarks, page 6). Applicant has, then, concluded in view of the differences between the other metal oxides taught by Monroe and Monroe 2nd, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added Na2O to Monroe (Remarks, page 6).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits, as pointed out by Applicant in the footnote of page 6, it is assumed any appearance of Ga2O3 in the Remarks was, in fact, meant to be Gd2O3.
The Examiner, additionally, submits that it, also, appears Applicant’s assertion implies that because Monroe 2nd does not teach every element disclosed in Monroe, with the addition of the concentration of Na2O, it cannot be combined with Monroe, the primary reference. It is then, hereby, noted that the rejection as presented before in the previous Office action and hereby above is a 103 obviousness rejection, not an anticipatory rejection. A secondary reference does not need to teach every element taught in a primary reference to be qualified as a reference. Monroe 2nd teaches a concentration specifically for Na2O, and it is analogous are to Monroe because Monroe 2nd is directed to alumina ceramic abrasive grains having majority alumina in their structures, in addition to recognizing the use of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide and zinc oxide. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both references are directed to alumina ceramic abrasive grains containing largely of alumina as well as other metal oxides such as zinc oxide, yttrium oxide, and sodium oxide. It is important to note Monroe, the primary reference, is not silent to the use of sodium oxide and specifically discloses reasons to use oxides, which is to alter the physical properties and/or chemical properties of the abrasive particles.
Most importantly, it is noted the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Considering the fact that the primary reference recognizes the use of sodium oxide and both references are directed to alumina ceramic abrasive grains using majority concentration of alumina and other metal oxides such as, at least, sodium oxide, yttrium oxide, and zinc oxide, it would be well within the scope of a skilled artisan, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have recognized the incorporation of a small concentration of sodium oxide, such as 0.01-1.0 wt% as that taught by Monroe 2nd because the use of a large quantity of such a metal oxide would be detrimental to the final abrasive grains. Moreover, Monroe 2nd teaches metal oxides such as sodium oxide improve the efficiency of the sintering aid and enhance the properties of the abrasive grains; Monroe, the primary reference, also discloses the use of metal oxide such as sodium oxide is to alter the physical and/or chemical properties of ceramic abrasive grains.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731