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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 8 – 12, 15 – 19, & 22. Claims 1 – 7 & 15 – 24 have been withdrawn. Claims 8 – 14 are examined herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "both major sides" in claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites “a board substrate having an inner and outer face.” As such, the claims uses the term “face” instead of “major sides.” It is unclear what Applicant intends to claim by the limitation “faced on both major sides.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
The specification states, “In some embodiments, the board substrate is a gypsum board, and in some other embodiments the board substrate is a gypsum substrate faced on both major sides with a glass fiber mat such as DensGlass® Sheathing, a gypsum panel with fiberglass mat facings available from Georgia Pacific Gypsum” (pg. 10, line 29 – pg. 11, line 2).
None of the claims recite the board substrate is a gypsum panel with fiberglass mat facings.
Claims 9 – 14 are dependent on claim 8 and therefore also rejected.
Furthermore, the following issues remain unresolved from the previous office action:
First, claim 8 recites, “A building board…comprising…wherein i), ii) and iii) are bonded together, in order, in a consolidated building board…” It is unclear whether the building board comprises “a consolidated building board” or is the building board is equivalent to “a consolidated building board.” Furthermore, it is unclear whether said consolidated building board consists of components i), ii), or iii) or merely comprises components i), ii), or iii). Clarification is requested regarding the recited consolidated building board.
Second, claim 8 recites, “a polymer tie layer having an inner sheet face and an outer sheet face.” Applicant appears to be using the term “layer” and “sheet” interchangeably when referring to the faces of the polymer tie layer. Clarification by amendment is requested.
Claims 9 – 14 are dependent on claim 8 and therefore also rejected.
Second, claim 11 recites the limitation "the two-material layered laminate" in the building board of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Third, claim 11 recites “the polymer tie layer is coextensive with the WRB sheet in the two-material layered laminate.” However, claim 8 clearly recites the building board comprises three components bonded together (the WRB sheet, the polymer tie layer, and the board substrate), assuming each component to be a separate and distinct material, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume the building board to comprise a three-material laminate, not a two-material laminate. It is assumed the “two-material laminate” refers to only the WRB and polymer tie layers. However, clarification by amendment is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shake et al. (US 2014/0272404 A1), in view of Beals (U.S. Patent No. 9,739,060 B2) and Toas et al. (WO 2006/034381 A2) and “Development of a Portable Sensitive Equipment Decontamination System,” *Edgewood Chemical Biological Center of the U.S. Army Research, Development & Engineering Command, ECBC-TR-766 (May 2010) & WayBack Machine Internet Archive of Spunfab® Industries website (Feb 2021).
*hereinafter referred to as “ECBC”
With regard to claim 8, Shake et al. teach an exterior sheathing panel (i.e. “building board”) comprising an air/water barrier membrane (16) (i.e., “water-resistant barrier (WRB) sheet”) having an inner face and an outer face, one or more polymer-based adhesive coatings and/or sealants applied to the air/water membrane (i.e., “polymer tie layer”) (paragraph [0055]), a cement core substrate (12) having an inner face and an outer face (i.e., “a board substrate”), and two cover sheets (14a/14b) having an inner face and an outer face comprising fibrous mats composed of fibers and a binder (paragraph [0023] – [0024]) (i.e., “board substrate faced on both major sides”) (paragraph [0019]). The cover sheet is sandwiched between the air/water barrier membrane and the cement core substrate (paragraph [0009] & Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shake et al. teach the air/water barrier should meet or exceed the minimum requirements sent forth by CAN/LC-S741 (“Standard for Air Barrier Materials – Specification”) and tested in accordance with by ASTM E2178 (“Standard Test Method for Air Permeance of Building Materials”) (paragraph [0026]). Furthermore, Shake et al. teach an additional air/water barrier membrane deposited in the integrated air/water membrane, such as commercially available Tyvek™ air/water barrier (paragraph [0049], [0055] – [0056]).
However, Shake et al. do not explicitly teach the air/water barrier (i.e., “WRB”) had a hydrostatic head of 55 cm or greater, a Gurley Hill porosity of 250 seconds or greater, and a moisture vapor transmission rate of at least 40 g/m2/24 hrs.
Beals teaches an insulation system comprising an air barrier having water vapor diffusion for the exterior walls of buildings (Col. 3, Lines 55 – 61). Exemplary air barriers positioned between an insulation layer and roof sheeting, wherein the air barrier is preferably Tyvek® Commercial Wrap (Col. 6, Lines 44 – 58). The continuous air barrier provides a fully sealed enclosed space. The air barrier stops ambient air from entering the building as well as to stop air within the enclosed space to exfiltrate through the building envelope to the ambient environment (Col. 3, Lines 55 – 61).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Beals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the additional air/water barrier membrane taught by Shake et al. using Tyvek® Commercial Wrap because it is known in the art for providing a fully sealed enclosed space that stops ambient air from entering or exiting the building.
Applicant’s specification (pg. 28, lines 9 – 12 & Table 3) discloses the WRB of their invention was preferably Tyvek™ Commercial Wrap or Tyvek™ Home Wrap.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Shake et al. do not teach the one or more supplemental adhesive coatings and/or sealants comprises a thermally or high frequency activated fibrous web with a moisture vapor transmission rate through said cover of at least equal to or greater than that of the air/vapor barrier.
Toas et al. teach a laminated building material comprising a process for laminating a film component to the building material wherein the film is provided on a roll of non-woven veil of thermoplastic fibers, wherein a melted (i.e., “thermally activated”) thermoplastic veil (i.e., “polymer tie layer”) mediates adhesion to building material to form a laminated article (paragraphs [0031] – [0032]). A non-woven veil suitable for us is a low-melting point veil of PP, PE, PA, or mixtures thereof. Suitable examples include Spunfab® POF 4913 polyolefin nonwoven, which has a thermal activation temperature 78°C, or Spunfab® PA 1541 polyamide nonwoven, which has a thermal activation temperature 87°C (paragraph [0050]). The veil component is provided such that the permeance (i.e., “water vapor permeance”/ “moisture transmission rate”) criteria of the water vapor retarder film to which it is adhered is maintained (paragraph [0050]). The (vapor) permeance of the laminate is not less than about 3.45 perms, more preferably not less than about 4.1 perms, as determined by the water method of ASTM E 96 Method B (paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Toas et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thermally activated thermoplastic veil, such as a low melting point veil composed of polyolefin or polyamide manufactured by Spunfab®, as a supplemental adhesive in the insulation system for a building taught by Shake et al. in order for the insulation system to maintain the same water permeance as the air/water barrier membrane taught by Shake et al.
Toas et al. do not teach the polyolefin or polyamide polymers of the thermally activated fibrous (adhesive) webs manufactured by Spunfab® (i.e., the polymer material of the cover layer taught by Shake et al.) have an elastic modulus greater than 1 x 106 Pa at 20°C and a softening temperature greater than 50°C, the softening temperature being the temperature at which the polymer elastic modulus drops below 30% of the elastic modulus of the polymer at 20°C.
ECBC assessed the effect of various Spunfab® adhesive webs in a laminate for flexibility, wherein facing fabrics of carbon fiber were joined by various adhesive web materials, including Spunfab® PA 1541 composed of copolyamide (0.25 osy), Spunfab® PO 4401 composed of polyolefin (0.175 osy), Spunfab® PO 4401 composed of polyolefin (0.25 osy), Spunfab® PA 1008 composed of copolyamide (0.6 osy), Spunfab® PE 2900 composed of polyester (0.60 osy), and Spunfab® SL 7001 composed of ternary polymers (0.78 osy) (pgs. 7 & 15, Table 4). The differences in stiffness are most evident for the light weight adhesive webs. The effect of orientation is greater for laminates prepared with adhesive webs 0.25 oz/yd2 (Spunfab® PA1541) than for laminates prepared with adhesive webs of 0.60 oz/yd2 (Spunfab® PA1008). The most flexible laminate (i.e., lower elastic modulus) contained Spunfab® web adhesive PA 1541C of basis weight 0.25 oz/yd2 (pgs. 47 – 48).
Furthermore, according to the Spunfab® website dated February 27, 2021 (before Applicant’s filing date), Spunfab® specializes in breathable (i.e., high vapor transmission) heat sealing (“thermally activatable”) adhesive webs for a number of applications, including construction materials.
Therefore, based on the teachings of the Spunfab® website & ECBC’s elastic modulus assessment of various Spunfab® adhesive webs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to substitute the breathable Spunfab® adhesive webs taught by Toas et al. with any of the breathable Spunfab® adhesive webs offered in the Spunfab® product line of a particular basis weight (and elastic modulus) through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired flexibility (i.e., elastic modulus) of the laminated building material. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The problem faced by the inventors was achieving a polymer tie layer with sufficiently high elastic modulus (see Applicant’s specification, pg. 33, lines 12 – 14 & Table 2). It is worth noting Applicant’s preferred polymer tie layers are Spunfab® POF4002 (polyolefin) and Spunfab® PO4065 (polyolefin) (see specification, Examples 1 – 3 & Tables 2 – 3). ECBC is considered analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors: the relative elastic modulus of various breathable adhesive webs (polymer tie layers) for joining substrate layers of laminates. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
With regard to claim 9, as noted above for claim 8, the cited prior art teaches the same Tyvek® Commercial Wrap for the water-resistant barrier (WRB) layer as used in Applicant’s preferred examples. Therefore, the consolidated building board taught by the prior art cited above inherently exhibits no water passage from the outer face of the WRB sheet to the board substrate from a fastener head overdriven 0.3 inches into the outer face of the consolidated building board.
With regard to claim 10, as noted above for claim 8, the cited prior art teaches the same Tyvek® Commercial Wrap for the water-resistant barrier (WRB) layer as used in Applicant’s preferred examples. Therefore, the consolidated building board taught by the prior art cited above inherently exhibits no water passage from the outer face of the WRB sheet to the board substrate from a fastener head overdriven 0.4 inches into the outer face of the consolidated building board.
With regard to claims 11 – 12, Shake et al. teach the system may include one or more supplemental adhesive coatings and/or sealants which can be applied to integrated air-water barrier membrane of the exterior sheathing panel. The additional adhesives can be applied over the entire surface (i.e., coextensive) of the panel (paragraph [0055]).
With respect to claim 13, as discussed above for claim 8, based on the teachings of the Spunfab® website & ECBC’s elastic modulus assessment of various Spunfab® adhesive webs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to substitute the breathable Spunfab® adhesive webs taught by Toas et al. with any of the breathable Spunfab® adhesive webs offered in the Spunfab® product line through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired basis weight and flexibility (i.e., elastic modulus) of the laminate product. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 14, as discussed above, Shake et al. teach the system may include one or more supplemental adhesive coatings and/or sealants which can be applied to integrated air-water barrier membrane of the exterior sheathing panel (paragraph [0055]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Claim 8 was objected to because there was no degree symbol in space between number ‘50’ and the ‘C’. The degree symbol has now been inserted, and withdrawal of the rejection is requested” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 8, the objection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claim 8 was rejected because the term ‘consolidated building board’ was unclear. The word ‘consolidated’ is redundant and has been removed from Claim 8. Likewise, the word ‘consolidated’ has been removed from all affected claims. Withdrawal of this rejection is requested for all affected claims” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the amendment of claim 8, the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claim 8 was also rejected because of the use of ‘sheet face’ with regards to the polymer tie layer. While this is traversed, to further prosecution, the word ‘sheet’ prior to ‘face’ with regard to the tie layer has been removed from Claim 8, and from all other affected claims. Withdrawal of this rejection is requested for all affected claims” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the amendment of claim 8, the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claim 11 was rejected because there was insufficient antecedent basis for the words ‘in the two-material layered laminate.’ These words have now been deleted from the claim. Applicant believes this amendment also clears up the third indefiniteness issues with Claim 11, which was confusion regarding two and three layers, as stated in the Action. Present Claim 11 now states that only the WRB sheet and the polymer tie layer are coextensive. Claim 12 states all three components are coextensive. Applicant respectfully believes the two claims are now clear and proper, and withdrawal of this rejection is requested for all affected claims” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the amendment of claims 11 – 12, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Shake is directed to a panel having an ‘integrated’ air/water barrier membrane. This ‘integrated’ air/water barrier membrane is a fluid applied coating, described as an ‘fluid applied air/water barrier’ (see paragraph [0025]). This is a liquid-applied coating on a gypsum board, it is not the presently-claimed WRB sheet material attached to a board via a web tie layer” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As previously discussed, Shake et al. teach the air/water membrane (i.e., WRB sheet material) is attached to a core substrate (i.e. a board) via an adhesive coating and/or sealant (i.e., tie layer). Toas et al. teach adhesive coatings and/or sealants comprising a melted thermoplastic non-woven veil (i.e. “thermally activated web tie layer”). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, “In paragraph [0056], Shake discloses the integrated air/water barrier membrane can be used in combination with an additional sheet membrane, and in this instance, the ‘Tyvek’ is the trademarked sheet product used as a house wrap, as stated in Shake. However, this is a sheet applied over a previously applied/formed air/water barrier coating, so the disclosure of Shake still does not provide the claimed structure of a building board having a WRB sheet attached to the board via the thermally or high frequency activated fibrous web as claimed.
“The Action points to the ‘cover sheet’ 14a of Shake, however, this is just a facing of the gypsum board, which is applied to the board during gypsum board manufacture. To further prosecution, Claim 8 has now been amended to state the board substrate is faced on both major sides, so that the claimed structure is a building board having facers that in turn has the claimed WRB sheet attached to the board via the claimed thermally or high frequency activated fibrous web. This structure is also not found or suggested in Shake” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the terms “faced” and “facers” do not have the same meaning. “Facer” refers to an object (i.e., a noun) and “faced” refers to an action (i.e., a verb) or a noun referring to a position/place (not an object), which has no meaning without context. Applicant’s specification does not use the term “facer” in any way, but rather uses the term “facings,” and without more context in claim 8, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not under what this limitation is referring to.
Second, Applicant’s specification does not have support for a board substrate faced on both sides with facers, interpreted to mean facers are external to the recited board substrate. Applicant’s specification states, “In some embodiments, the board substrate is a gypsum board, and in some other embodiments the board substrate is a gypsum substrate faced on both major sides with a glass fiber mat such as DensGlass® Sheathing, a gypsum panel with fiberglass mat facings available from Georgia Pacific Gypsum” (pg. 10, line 29 – pg. 11, line 2). This particular teaching suggests the board substrate has two faces, wherein the board substrate is composed of a gypsum panel with fiberglass mat facings. Worded in this way, it is understood that the fiberglass mat facings are components of the recited board substrate and not external to the recited board substrate.
Third, Applicant’s specification has support for only one species referring to “both major sides”: fiberglass mat facings on both sides of a gypsum panel. Applicant asserts their claim refers to much larger genus of any type of board substrate with any type of facer on both sides. If the Examiner had interpreted the claim language in this way, Applicant’s amendment would be considered new matter because the specification does not have sufficient support for all species within the genus Applicant asserts has been claimed.
Fourth, Applicant has misunderstood the teaching of the “cover sheets” taught by Shake et al. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Shake et al. do not teach cover sheets 14a and 14b are the optional “additional sheet” (air/water barrier membrane wrap) of paragraphs [0053] & [0056]). As shown in Fig. 1, Shake et al. teach cover sheet 14a is sandwiched between the cementitious core (12) and the air/water barrier membrane (16) (see Shake, paragraph [0018]). Shake et al. do not teach the cover sheets 14a/14b to have any air/water barrier properties.
On the other hand, the “additional sheet”/ “sheet membrane”) (optional air/water barrier membrane wrap, not shown in the Figures), on the other hand, is taught by Shake et al. to be deposited on the air/water barrier membrane (16) after the air/water membrane (16) is deposited on the panel (core substrate) (12) (see Shake, paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, the cover layers (14a/14b), which is positioned between the core substrate (12) and the integrated air/water barrier membrane (16) cannot possibly be in reference to the “additional sheet membrane” discussed in paragraphs [0053] & [0056] of Shake.
Applicant argues, “The Action combines Beals with Shake, stating that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the Tyvek® Commercial Wrap for the integrated air/water barrier of Shake. However, Shake teaches away from doing exactly that. The Background section of Shake discusses at length the problem of WRB sheet materials, including stating at the end of paragraph [0003] that
‘…Moreover, the sheet backing typically provides a poor bonding surface for other construction materials, thereby making sheets difficult to adhere.’
“Paragraph [0004] of Shake further goes onto tout the benefits of the fluid-applied coatings (membranes) over ‘sheet membrane barrier products.’ Therefore, one of ordinary skill, given the disclosure of Shake, would have no motivation to substitute a WRB sheet for the fluid-applied coating” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Shake’s claim 1 recites “comprising…an integrated air/water barrier membrane.” Shake’s claim 1 does not require an air-water barrier membrane consisting only of an integrated air/water barrier membrane (i.e., coating).
Second, as noted in the last paragraph of page 5 of the previous office action, Shake teaches the following:
[0053] In an embodiment, a cementitious exterior sheathing panel with an integrated air/water barrier membrane on at least one surface, as described above, further comprises a sheet membrane adhered to the integrated air/water barrier membrane. After the integrated air/water barrier membrane is formed on the panel, a sheet membrane with air- and/or moisture-resistant properties can be applied to the membrane. The sheet membrane can be applied to the integrated air/water barrier membrane using any suitable method, such as laying, rolling, laminating, calendering, and/or pressing. Typically the sheet membrane will be cut to a size commensurate with the cementitious exterior sheathing panel. The sheet generally can be cut prior to application to the panel, but in some embodiments, the sheet membrane is applied in roll form to a series of joined panels, which can then be cut to define single integrated panels.
[0056] While in some embodiments, an exterior sheathing panel with an integrated air/water barrier membrane can be used in combination with an additional sheet membrane, in other embodiments the exterior sheathing panel can be used without the sheet membrane. The sheet membrane with air- and/or moisture-resistant properties (also known as house or building wrap) can be any suitable material, such as those prepared from asphalt-impregnated paper or fiberglass, microperforated cross-lapped films, films laminated to spunbound nonwovens, films laminated or coated to polypropylene wovens, supercalendered wetlaid polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene) fibril nonwoven (e.g., TYVEK.TM.), and drainable house wraps. In embodiments, a suitable sheet membrane can meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth by ASTM E2178 ("Standard Test Method for Air Permeance of Building Materials"). Examples of sheet building wraps are shown and described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,148,160 and U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2006/0040091 and 2006/0051560, e.g., which disclosures are hereby incorporated by reference herein. Examples of commercially-available sheet membranes include those marketed under the following trade names: Tri-Built Building Wrap (Tri-Built), TYVEK.TM. (DuPont), HARDIEWRAP.TM. (James Hardie), HYDROGAP.TM. (Benjamin Obdyke), WEATHERMATE.TM. (Dow), BLUESKIN.TM. (Henry Co.), FOILSKIN.TM. (Henry Co.), AIR-SHIELD.TM. (W. R. Meadows), and CERTAWRAP.TM. (CertainTeed).
Therefore, as shown in paragraphs [0053] & [0056] of Shake et al., the air-water barrier membrane taught by Shake et al. envisions a plurality of different embodiments and is not limited to consisting of the fluid-applied (coating/integrated) air-water barrier alone. As shown above, Shake et al. envisioned embodiments in which the air-water barrier membrane may also may comprise both a combination of both the fluid-applied (coating) air-water barrier and additional sheets of air-water barriers, such as known wraps, such as the wrap taught by Beals.
Applicant argues, “The Action further combines Toas and ECBC as teachings of the polymer tie layer. However, the combination with these references does not cure the fundamental structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the disclosure in Shake” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781